SIX HOURS OF MY LIFE I WILL NEVER GET BACK: THINGS I LEARNED FROM WATCHING THE HOSTEL TRILOGY IN A SINGLE SITTING

There are moments in my life where I make extremely unwise decisions and I will be the last to admit it when I've made a mistake.  However, this is an instance where I will scream from the rooftops how much of an idiot I am.  I'm one of those horror nerds that likes to watch franchises all at once.  When it's Halloween, I'm that asshole that stays inside all day to watch every single Halloween film ever made in a row.  Thanks to the wonderful feature of FEARnet and a hell of a chest cold, my dumbass thought it would be wise to watch all three HOSTEL films, one right after another.  This is the part where my Sassy Gay Friend should pop in and ask me to "look at my life, look at my choices," because this was definitely one of my more idiotic decisions.  I'm not going to sugarcoat it. I hated HOSTEL when it first came out. I really, really hated it. Now before anyone makes a comment about me being a girl or not being able to handle the gore, you can take those stupid comments and put them in your pocket.  I love me some gore, but it needs to have a purpose and it needs to have motivation behind it.  I felt the original HOSTEL was  nothing more than gratuitous violence that rested solely on gross-out factor and provided little to no storyline credibility.  Hoping that maybe Eli Roth could retain some of his Cabin Fever glory in the sequel, I watched that.  I'll be honest, I turned it off about a half hour into  it. I just couldn't do it.  One would think that after that I'd be done with it all but little miss "glass-half-full" over here thought that maybe seeing them all at once would be the better choice.  Boy, was I wrong.  Just like any messy breakup, instead of being upset about all of the wasted time it's important to understand and appreciate the things you learned from the experience.  I submit for approval, the life lessons learned from enduring the HOSTEL trilogy in one sitting.

HOSTEL

Strong concepts can't save a weak movie: If there's one thing I won't deny Eli Roth, it's that he did create a Hell of a creepy concept.  The idea that there are people willing to pay a large sum of money to be a part of a league of violent killers with a penchant for torturing innocent tourists sounds like TAKEN on Walter White strength meth.  Having an interesting idea isn't all a film needs to be successful.  There is little to no tension in the film and all of the violence and killing feels entirely unmotivated.  Now, I understand that half of the charm comes from the "random acts of killing" but this just didn't click right with me.  There just wasn't a fluidity between the storyline and the actions within it. For shame, pussycat.   

Decent acting also cannot save a weak movie: As an actor myself, I am a very picky critic when it comes to acting in a horror film.  I don't think anyone in this film is deserving of any awards for their performances anytime soon, but Jay Hernandez is pretty damn convincing.  At least all of the actors were on the same page with their mediocrity, which gave some sense of continuity within a film that had none elsewhere.  Despite having actors that seemed very committed to the direction they had been given, the film still felt extremely flat and void of any sort of depth.  This could possibly be the terrible writing given for the women in this film.  Can screenwriters please start consulting women before they try to write for them? Eli Roth may have a hell of a female fanbase, but it is blatantly apparent the man has absolutely no clue how to write women.

Your special FX are bad, and you should feel bad: I don't do eye trauma, I don't. It's quite possibly the greatest kryptonite I have.  Upon my first viewing of HOSTEL I distinctly remember having to cover my face and I barely made it through the scene. Upon revisiting, I have no idea what I was so scared of.  One of the most well known scenes from the film has quite possibly the WORST special FX I have ever seen.  When she's screaming in the chair before Paxton cuts off the eye, YOU CAN SEE HER CLOSED EYELID UNDER THE PROSTHETIC. Come on, guys. Get your shit together. That's just basic FX makeup 101. The Achilles tendon cut is pretty good, but the eye scene is one of the worst makeup jobs I've seen in a very long time. Howard Berger, you're better than this.

Roth has absolutely no idea what people really talk like: There is this weird trend going on with filmmakers and having absolutely no idea what teenagers/young 20-somethings actually sound like. HOSTEL doesn't have any lines that are particularly memorable, but Roth slam jams some sarcastic rudeness and tries to play it off as "this is how kids today talk" but the thing is, they don't. They don't talk like how he thinks they do, at all. At 22, I think I'd know. His entire script of dialogue feels entirely forced and trying way too hard to be edgy.  It feels like that kid in the back of everyone's fiction writing class that just HAD to push the envelope if for any other reason than pushing the envelope.  My friends and I have a fair share of conversations that would make even Lisa Lampanelli blush, but Eli Roth must be compensating for something with the amount of dick references he's got sprinkled throughout...It was laughable in a bad way and really hurt the overall atmosphere of the film.  It's okay to be funny, but it's another thing for every single sentence out of someone's mouth to be worthy of upvotes on internet forums.  Good Example of Young Adult Dialogue: Adam Green's FROZEN. 

HOSTEL II

Eli Roth still has no idea how to write women: There is a reason that Eli Roth hasn't settled down yet, he has no idea what women are all about. Instead of focusing on frat boys like in the first film, Hostel II focuses on three art students who are the stockiest stock characters that ever stock charactered.  I still can't determine if it's because Eli Roth really, truly doesn't understand women, or if he's just a lazy fucking writer.  Two hours of hearing from whiny drunk blonde, overly angsty 'unique' brunette, and desperate wannabe. Heather Matarazzo must have been in a bind for cash, because this was so beneath her.

No one has any idea how much blood is in the human body: One of the misogynist scenes in horror history is the "Elizabeth Bathory" scene and with good reason. It may be (technically speaking) the best shot of the film, but Heather Matarazzo probably has about 3 liters of blood in her entire body, and there is no way she would be spilling this much all over this woman. I was so pissed off watching this scene, and the most misunderstood use of human blood since Johnny Depp's beddeath in Nightmare on Elm Street didn't help the case.

Apparently casting isn't important:  When I'm thinking of terrifying villains, I of course think immediately of Roger Bart.  Um. What? Roger Bart?! THE STRAIGHT NATHAN LANE?! A VILLAIN?! Eli Roth, I know you're not the best at casting (see Rider Strong in Cabin Fever) but this is ridiculous. This man has made a career as a character actor.  I'm all for giving actors opportunities out of type, but casting Roger Bart as a villain is about as convincing as casting Michael Cera as a heartthrob.  Every time he was on screen I was dumbfounded as to how THIS was their best option. Seriously? I just look at him and start singing showtunes.

Gimmicks can be used without reason: I'm sorry. What in the actual fuck was the purpose of putting these little desensitized hellions outside of being 'shocking' or 'edgy'?  Every time these little buggers came on screen I didn't know whether to laugh or scream in frustration.  It's one thing when killer kids have a purpose, but these kids served absolutely no purpose to the film at all. If the scenes including these kids were cut, the film would have lost absolutely nothing, if anything, the film could have benefited from keeping these ridiculously purposeless scenes on the cutting room floor.

HOSTEL III

Weird shit for no reason is a great distraction: Look at this mask. I'm serious. Look at it.  The entire premise of the third installment feels like the series had a baby with the rich people form Rat Race and are now betting in Vegas on the parameters of the deaths of these innocent people.  I kind of dig this concept, but what the hell was the point of this? It's aesthetically impressive, yes, but really distracting. I didn't care about the death scene, all I wanted was a better look at her mask work, which I think was the point all along. This film is garbage, here's a cool mask as a consolation prize.

Sluts are dumb: I am not using the word in an attempt to slut shame, I am using it because that is the stock character all of the women in this film fall into. They're all either escorts or sexually active which is HOLY SHIT SO TABOO in today's modern world.  So when this poor lass is covered with bugs and sweet stuff on her mouth, the slut wouldn't know any better than to close her mouth, would she? Of course not, because for a woman to have any sort of intelligence in any of these films is just too unrealistic. Did I mention she was dressed up like a cheerleader as well? Oh yeah, that happened too.

Victor learned a lot while he was in Europe: One of the more interesting casting choices was Kip Pardue as the villain.  I found it to be a really interesting choice and Pardue really delivered.  Taking the Elite Hunting Club out of their dreary European chambers and into the glamorous world of Las Vegas almost made it a little creepier for me (as an American) to think that this was going on in a place I'd actually visited instead of a location I'll probably avoid like the plague.  It seems that once the film got out of the hands of Eli Roth, things started to improve a little. I mean, a half step up from garbage is still trash, but this could have been a lot worse than it was.

I just saved you six miserable hours. 

You can thank me later.

BEN & HARRY: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MAJOR MEN OF NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD

In 1961, a director out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania was making his debut with an independent horror film by the title of Night of the Living Dead. Made on a budget of only one hundred and fourteen thousand dollars, George A. Romero’s first installment in his monumental and iconic “Living Dead” series, completely changed the face of the modern horror film and introduced audiences into the basis for the most popular subgenre of horror cinema. Romero’s slow moving, reanimated, undead humans surviving off of eating the flesh of the living became a staple for the modern zombie film and changed the face of undead monsters forever. Night of the Living Dead follows a group of people seeking refuge in an abandoned farmhouse amidst what would appear to be an epidemic where the recently deceased were reanimating, then attacking and eating the flesh of the living. An exposition on the true horrors of humanity as well as introducing a monster that had never been seen before, Night of the Living Dead is one of the most influential horror movies of all time.

Although George A. Romero consistently claims that his casting of Duane Johnson as the African-American protagonist “Ben” was solely based on the actor’s merit and wonderful audition, it would be giving the director a great disservice by not focusing on the importance of a leading African-American character as the main source of salvation, especially in 1968. At this time in America, society was slowly losing grasp on the hopeful ideals of a utopian society in the wake of the Vietnam War. The civil rights movement was growing in full force, but Americans were still hesitant to view African-American citizens on the same plane as their Caucasian counterparts. Ben single-handedly revolutionized the position of African Americans in the horror genre, and potentially, cinema as a whole. As a calm, collected, strong, and cool-headed hero overcoming an attack of not only monsters but also the hysterical antics of the white people surrounding him, Ben was one of the most prominent figures of African Americans in films portraying something outside of a parody or stereotype. Ben does the unthinkable for an African-American man at this time. Ben knocks a frantic white woman out cold, shoots a white man, acts as the voice of reason in the state of chaos, and stands as what would have been the sole survivor (if he hadn’t been mistaken for a ghoul and shot by a white militia). While it may be uncomfortable to address these issues in 2012 with an increasingly more welcoming attitude towards minority groups, the importance of Ben’s position cannot be ignored.

Throughout the course of the film, Harry Cooper is the antitheses of Ben’s character. Harry is distrusting, frantic, stubborn, selfish, and white. Harry was a strong symbol for the “old school” view of most of America at this time. A racist white man hiding out in the basement, Harry was a coward that used bullying and threatening actions as a means to achieve his wants. The older generations in 1968 were living amongst a growing youth of flower children fighting back the government and welcoming change at every turn. The old school disposition was hesitant to follow suit with their younger counterparts, and Harry Cooper is a shining beacon of that mentality.

One scene in particular, is the altercation between Ben and the Caucasian antagonist of the film, fellow refugee Harry Cooper. After a botched attempt for the two young adults trying to escape the ghouls by vehicle, Ben finds himself trapped outside the house after failing to save them. Harry Cooper and his family are the only ones inside the locked house, and Ben remains on the front porch trying to get in while fighting off the horde of the undead. Harry could easily open the door, but he stands hesitant in the opening of the cellar door with the option of either aiding in Ben’s safety, or letting him die. Ben frantically pummels himself into the doorway until finally kicking the door open. At a moment of change in character, Harry Cooper runs to the door to help Ben barricade it shut. Once the door is nailed shut, Ben immediately turns on Harry and begins to punch him numerous times before throwing him into an armchair and threatening to throw him to the ghouls.

 This scene may have appeared to be nothing more than a cowardly man locking out another, but when analyzed further, it represents society’s attitudes towards change as a whole. Most of the initial shots of Harry show him in shadowed lighting while Ben is almost always in full light. It was as if Ben was the white light and Harry was left in the darkness. Harry and his family represent the traditional standards for the American family as set up by the ruling white class. The Cooper family remains within the home, a place of comfort, safety, and white familiarity. Outside of the confines of the home contained a world of potential danger, the unknown, and an African American man. When Ben kicks the door in, he’s a personification of the new changes that were happening to society whether or not the ruling white class was prepared for it. Ben is reality. He was a force to be reckoned with and his advancements weren’t going to be stopped.

Following Ben’s initial emergence, Harry is seen hiding in the doorway to the cellar. Harry had the choice between helping to keep out the monsters outside, or running even further downstairs into the cellar. The cellar would have solidified Harry’s desire for familiarity, but he reluctantly helps Ben nail the door shut. It can be interpreted that Harry had a change of heart when deciding to nail the door shut, but it could also be analyzed that his only motivation for barricading the door was to further protect himself and keep out the unknown. However, when Ben and Harry both nail the door closed, it symbolized that regardless of differences, the two were going to have to work together in order for things to move smoothly and to keep themselves protected. Once order was restored and Ben began to hit Harry, he was literally giving the old school mentality a reality slap. The terrors of the societal changes happening in 1968 were difficult for many of the older generations to handle and it wasn’t until the changes were forced upon them that they began to try and accept them. These cultural advancements needed to come with a heavy hand otherwise these changes wouldn’t have come at all.

LOOK WHAT YOUR BROTHER DID TO THE DOOR: A LOOK AT THE IDEOLOGY OF THE PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY DISABLED IN THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE

Hi, have you missed me?  I'll spare the gritty details of why my absence has been exactly one month, but in short, MAMA'S BEEN BUSY! I took a well needed break and I'm feeling better than ever.  Which means more fun for you :) Earlier today I posted on my instagram the cover photo for a paper I wrote for my film class on the ideology ideology of the physically and mentally disabled in The Texas Chain Saw Masscare . Well, apparently you fools want to read it.  I've modified the original content just a tad so it'll read less like an academic article and more like a BJ-C blog entry, but without further ado, THE IDEOLOGY OF THE PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY DISABLED IN THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE!!

Hailing from the desert plains of Texas, a college professor and documentary cameraman by the name of Tobe Hooper was dabbling with independent films, while attempting to wrangle up a crew for a feature film of his own. Alongside writing partner Kim Henkel and comprised predominately of college professors and local students, Hooper armed himself with an estimated $60,000 budget and created one of the most iconic horror films of all time, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Following the story of Sally Hardesty, her brother Franklin, their friend Jerry, their friend Pam, and Pam’s boyfriend Kirk, the audience is shown a look into flower children on a road trip across the state in hopes of visiting a home from Sally and Franklin’s childhood as well as investigating a recent grave robbing.  Why anyone would desire to visit a dead body impaled through the asshole by a gravestone is beyond me, but the '70s were a weird fucking era.  The youngsters living in an era before picking up strangers from the road was seen as strange take it upon themselves to pick up a mysterious hitchhiker along their journey who turns violent, erratic, and then forces the troupe to stop along their trip just to deal with his insanity. Who would have thought picking up a sweaty stranger with weird jewelry and a camera dangling off his neck was going to be anything but sane.  After a bit more of a drive, the “Van Family” as they are called, comes across the old house and later on, the Leatherface family residing just next door.

Taking place towards the end of the Vietnam War, the film acts as subtle commentary on the current socio-political climate as well as an exploitation in an immense amount of ideologies of American culture. Arguably, it is the emergence of disabled characters in cinema that acts as one of the most overlooked attribute of the film's importance. Before 1974, mentally and physically handicapped individuals were few and far between on the silver screen, but The Texas Chain Saw Massacre showcases a physically handicapped man and a family of seemingly mentally handicapped individuals. For those grateful enough to live without any sort of physical or mental handicaps, it can be difficult at times to understand or have the proper know how in terms of existing around the disabled. To put it simply, we're some pretty politically incorrect assholes who stare at the disabled or make off-handed comments.  TCM exploits the human’s tendency to treat those with physical handicaps with pity or condolences while greeting the mentally disabled with fear, hostility, and judgment.

The character of Franklin Hardesty is immediately pinpointed as the outcast of the “Van Family”. Surrounded by thin, conventionally attractive flower children, Franklin is overweight, sweaty, temperamental, and paralyzed from the waist down. It becomes rather obvious that Franklin is a black sheep and is to be treated as such. When the Van Family picks up the mysterious hitchhiker, Franklin is the first one to be mistreated on the van. His inability to escape due to the confines of his chair cause the audience to feel a sense of sympathy for him and his condition. Individuals that are physically capable and able to escape if placed in a similar scenario watch this scene without the levity of taking their ability to run away for granted. This severs any connection to the emotional struggle needed to understand and interpret the motives of how each character is interpreted, regardless of their motives. In later scenes, Franklin is shown struggling with entering the home due to the poor traction of the wheelchair, or needing the aide of Sally to push him through the forest in order to escape the dangers that lie ahead. Instead of feeling scared or worried for the well being of his character, audiences instead are geared to feel pity towards his situation.

Audiences know from the beginning that his wheelchair is going to be responsible for his decline, (due to the limited mobility and the struggle of wheeling around the rough terrain) and because of that, we no longer fear for his safety but rather look down upon him for being doomed from the start. Unfortunately, this state of mind seems to be one that is frequently instilled within human psyche regardless of time period. Tobe Hooper utilizes Franklin's condition to garner and molest the notions and misconceptions that we as a society feel towards the handicapped. Is Franklin's physical limitations a result of his demise or not? It's not the act of examining these shortcomings but rather a needed reflection as a whole of why we view this as any reason to segregate this character from any other victim.

In contrast to the physical disability of Franklin, The Leatherface family is often attributed to some form of mental illness as a means to explain their murderous and cannibalistic tendencies. Without further dissection, it is vital that it is mentioned that there is a very strong possibility that the Leatherface family is without any sort of mental disability at all. The progeny of the Leatherface family live as male descendents of a character known only as “Grandpa”. As the patriarch of the household, all of the men born into this family line have been raised from birth to be relentless killing machines. A life of manipulation, death, and destruction is the only way of life these individuals know. Without divulging into far more rooted arguments of nature vs. nurture, let it be known that criminal actions do not equate mental illness. Whether or not the Leatherface family was suffering from a mental illness is irrelevant, because to the victims in the film, they associated their actions with that of a “crazy” person and reacted to them in response to that assumption. During the ‘dinner party,’ Sally screams in terror "You’re crazy,” something that audiences watching the films more than likely agreed with. This statement alone is the sole proof of the way the audience views the Leatherface family. Mental disabilities are highly misunderstood and the actions it causes those suffering with the disability to perform are often so different than that of “normal” society that it invokes an uncontrollable sense of fear in those that are without the mental disability. Sally makes her panicked assumption of the mental state of mind of the Leatherface family in a frantic, screaming, and traumatic situation. From the very beginning, the Van family treats those that behave even the slightest inkling outside of “normal” with hostility and cruelty. Is it that we as society value our physical capabilities over our mental capacities, or is it that we truly fear what the human mind is capable of causing the body to do? Regardless of the answer to this question, the ideology of the way society handles those with handicaps is reflected as clear as crystal in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.  Crazy should be handled with hostility and even starting to sit and think of the reasoning behind the "insane" actions is simply a waste.

Once Sally has escaped the traumatic events, she is shown in her final scenes in a state of manic laughter.  Has she survived? Yes. At what cost? That is the real question.  In a world of overly political correctness, it's difficult to swallow the behaviors shown in films of yesteryear.  What audiences NEED to understand is a sense of context, and to accept that films are a product of their time.  While using racial slurs or derogatory language towards specific minority groups would be deemed improper in today's film world, our views towards those suffering from physical and mental disabilities appears not to have changed.  It may be difficult to grasp, but by simply taking a look back at The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, we as a society can be forced to look dead on at how slowly we've evolved in terms of sensitivity to the disabled.

WOMEN'S HALLOWEEN COSTUMES: NON-SEXY NEED NOT APPLY

 For most horror fanatics, Halloween is the most exciting part of our entire year.  For one night, it becomes socially acceptable for us to show off our nerd prowess without fear of judgement.  Now, of course I understand that we are all proud of our geekery year round, but the general populous is less likely to look down upon us around the witching hour.  It also shouldn't matter what the general public has to say about us, but for the sake of argument, let us all just accept the fact that we're more welcome to be spooky this time of year in contrast to say, Easter.  Moving on.  Halloween is a time of tricks, treats, and dressing up as whoever or whatever we please.  The weird thing, is that for women, we are forced to be whatever or whoever we please...within a very specific constraint.  Provocative. Before I even get into this argument, know that I am a HUGE advocate against Slut-Shaming.  If someone wants to dress a certain way, more power to them, this argument is not against women who choose to dress provocatively, it is an argument against perpetuating objectification for no other reason than to excuse objectification with a holiday "tradition".

Without divulging into the history of Halloween and all that jazz, in the western world it is generally accepted as a time of year where individuals dress up in costumes, throw parties, carve pumpkins, and eat an unmeasurable amount of sugar.  Costumes can range from common professions, beloved characters, super heroes, monsters, and of course, sexual fantasies.  Over the past few years, an unsettling trend of women's costumes has grown to a near epidemic status.  It would appear that for a woman to have a socially acceptable Halloween costume, she must wear one in a manner as provocative as humanly possible.  Again, let me emphasize that I have no issue with what a woman chooses to or to not wear.  However, when I walk into a Halloween costume emporium and have to choose between something baring my midriff, something baring my chest, or something so short I'd show my whispering eye if I sneezed, that is a sign of a problem.  The issue here isn't that women are dressing provocatively, the issue is that it would appear that highly sexualized costumes are our only option.  Perhaps worse is the fact that this idea has been so engrained into our skulls, women are starting to believe that it really is our only option.  Are there exceptions to this rule? Of course.  Unfortunately, exceptions are in the vast minority.  

It is true that men and women's clothing must be tailored differently simply because we're built differently. (See: Boobs and Hips)  However, please look at this photo above.  The costume to the left is a familiar Michael Myers costume inspired by the Halloween series.  The costume to the right?  The female version of the same costume.  Seriously. That's supposed to be a Michael Myers costume.  If you look, you'll notice an absence of a mask, a tighter fitting form, a more revealing top towards the breasts, and a set of "fuck-me" pumps.  I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure Laurie Strode could have knocked the block off of "Michelle Myers".  The first image showcased in this article is the increasingly popular "Mrs. Krueger" costume, the female counterpart of Freddy.  I will admit that this is a costume that particularly tickles my fancy, but seriously...Freddy wore pants.  Freddy also had a face burned to all Holy Hell.  Of course, the woman couldn't have burns though, no.  Then no one would want to get her in the sack.

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of women's Halloween costume is how early the sexualization begins.  I won't even post some of the ridiculous things posted about children's costuming, but please read above the description of a "teen" costume.  Teen as in "more than likely too young to consent to sex".  The description says "...whimsical and girly but you are all grown up now so why not find out if big boys like to play with dolls!" Um. What? This sounds like something out of a kiddie-porn chat session. Remember, this costume is geared towards girls between the ages of 13-18, geared towards women who can't vote or in some instances drive or see an R-Rated movie without the help of mom and dad...AND THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE THAT SEXY!? The most screwed up part about all of this is that we are still living in a country where lawyers will ask rape victims what they were wearing and yet women are still expected to dress like this on Halloween.  ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!

I'll admit that I'm guilty of dressing "slutty" on Halloween. I always do. I'm 22 years old and I am at college. However, instead of being a half naked "insert profession or object or character" here, I find a way to show of my horror chops as well.  Since starting college I've been a female Ash (complete with chainsaw arm), a Silent Hill nurse, a broken doll, and this year I'll be going as Laurie from Trick R Treat.  All of these costumes, I've had to make myself.  Why? Because not only is it next to impossible to find horror nerd costumes for a girl that aren't the ones featured above,but to find a costume in plus size? Get outta here...

"BUT MEN ARE OBJECTIFIED TOO!" You may cry. No. No they are not. Stop right there. You're wrong. Yes, there will be some skimpy and/or tight fitting costumes here and there, but NOT many.  Seriously, I could count on my fingers how many "sexualized" male costumes there were.  Hell, even the ones that are there are clearly for the empowerment of the man and not for the female gaze. The “sexy” costumes will either be ridiculously jokey with some sort of visual reference to a penis on the exterior of the costume, OR nothing special. Many of the "sexy" male costumes are just different colored boxers, sometimes with a set of suspenders.  The costume to the right is meant to be funny.  There's a reason the "Dick In A Box" video got so many hits, and it's not because it was sexually appealing to see Andy Sandburg gift wrap his johnson.  Of course I'm not saying that men aren't objectified at times, but in the world of Halloween costumes, men can do whatever they want, but if a woman doesn't dress completely risque, she's "doing it wrong".  This is a huge problem and unfortunately, because we keep dishing out the dough for these costumes, it's a problem that isn't going to be resolved anytime soon.

I cannot stress again that I have no qualms with women who decide to dress sexy for Halloween, I do it, I love to do it. It makes me feel good about myself. The problem is that women aren't allowed to make that decision.  Dressing sexy is our only option. Unless we make a costume by hand or forego the costumes all together and wear street clothes, women are forced to pick through the aisles of costumes with hemlines growing shorter and tops squeezing tighter.  We need options, we need choices, and unfortunately for us, the only decisions we get to make in Halloween costume selection is whether or not we're showing leg or breast this season.

JOSHUA HOFFINE JOINS FORCES WITH VISCERA FILM FESTIVAL

Joshua Hoffine is the man behind the lens of some of the most horrific photographs in recent history.  Taking inspirations from his grotesquely gorgeous photography from childhood nightmares, skinned corpses, H.P. Lovecraft, Jack the Ripper, and supernatural urban legends, Hoffine has recently teamed up with the Viscera Film Festival to create an aura all its own. 

FROM THE PRESS RELEASE: Viscera’s Founder and Chief Officer of Operations, Shannon Lark, explains: “We went with Hoffine's work to represent the Viscera Film Festival this year because his photography captures an eerie beauty, conjuring a nostalgic feeling of horror that hits the human psyche with memories of childhood fears and reminds us of how deeply moving and vital the genre is for humans to express and share.
The Viscera Organization's festivals exploit the terrifying, the thrilling, and the fantastic with a vivid landscape of genre films by women. Hoffine's depiction of the body, the soul, and the monstrosity of the imagination completely resonates with the mind blowing work by female filmmakers who participate in the Viscera Film Festival.”
And what about that ghoulish woman lying among roses? “Persephone was a nature goddess who became Queen of the Underworld after being abducted by Hades. The myth of her abduction represents her role as the personification of vegetation – which shoots forth in spring and withdraws into the earth in autumn.  When she is in the Underworld we experience winter.  And when she visits the world she brings with her spring, flowers, and the resurrection of life. As both a Goddess of Spring, and the Queen of the Underworld – she exemplifies the tension between life and death,” Hoffine states. “As for Viscera, I proudly support emerging women filmmakers in the horror genre.”
About the Viscera Film Festival and Viscera Organization:

The Viscera Film Festival was created in 2007 by Shannon Lark to encourage and promote the work of women horror filmmakers. The fest has grown each year, morphing into a 501(c)3 non-profit organization with an ever-expanding, dynamic staff of men and women who eat, sleep, and breathe genre cinema. Beginning as a touring festival, Viscera has become a highly anticipated genre event in Los Angeles, complete with red carpet (what we affectionately refer to as the “Bloody Carpet”), celebrity guests, and a raucous after-party. 2012 marked the third annual Bloody Carpet event in Los Angeles at the Egyptian Theatre. Viscera’s tentacles have encircled the globe and films programmed at the festival have screened all over the world. 
The call for submissions for Viscera’s 2013 festival is open through February 28, 2013 (culminating in Women in Horror Month), accepting digital submissions only. Unlike most festivals, Viscera does not charge submission fees. Filmmakers interested in submitting should head to the Submissions tab of the main website, www.viscerafilmfestival.com.

STRANGE KIDS CLUB RELEASES ART PRINTS FOR FAMOUS HORROR SEQUELS (that should have happened)

Artwork by Nathan Thomas Milliner. 18″x24″ digital print. Hand numbered. Edition of 100.

As much as we'd all like to think that each and every horror film is made with the hopes of moving forward a storyline, or giving new life to the world of the film.  Unfortunately, most of the time, it's all about making money.  There's a reason we keep seeing Wrong Turn 525600 being made while incredible films more deserving of advancements in plot are left to sit and collect dust.  Luckily, Rondal Scott and the folks over at Strange Kids Club have found a fantastic way to give our little fanhearts something we've always dreamed of, but also given a way for you to hold on to a piece of would-be horror history.

Strange Kids Club is very excited to announce their latest project, kicking off this October with the release of its collector’s art print series based on horror sequels that don’t, but certainly should, exist. The series will include three prints, each brought to life by a different artist. The first poster in the series, “The Burning 2” by artist Nathan Thomas Milliner was unveiled this morning and will be made available for purchase on Strange Kids Club today, Thursday, October 4th at 9:30am.

Click the poster above or right HERE to get your hands on your copy, today!

PLEASE NOTE: These posters will be on pre-order, so please allow approximately 5 to 6 weeks for poster to ship. Actual shipping transit time (once your order has been shipped) will vary based on your location.

WILL HD BE THE DEATH OF PRACTICAL FX?

Before I continue any further with this article, let it be known that I am in no way an AV expert, nor have I ever claimed to be one.  I DO NOT KNOW THE PROPER TERMINOLOGY FOR ANY OF THIS HD/LCD/FPS/OPP NONSENSE.  I do, however, know when something looks like garbage. This article is a reflection of an opinion gathered by my own personal experiences. 

 

In the wake of the uproar tied to The Hobbit's release trailer in 48fps (frames per second), fans and critics have been in a constant debate on whether or not this sort of filmmaking is necessary.  Some are claiming that this is the way of the future, that we need to bite our tongues and accept the fact that sooner or later, all films are going to be in this clearer than the naked-eye format, while others are finding it difficult to watch with a jarring clarity.  48fps is dramatically quicker than what our eyes are used to and while the picture quality in still frames look monumentally better, the clarity does not come without a price. Even if the film is shot in the more standard "cinematical" format, film companies are upgrading to a higher picture quality.  While the picture quality is undoubtedly gorgeous, it enhances flaws just as dramatically as it does perfections.  Wrinkles that we wouldn't see in person are now glaring at us in the face, and hairs beneath pores are now seen on an insanely large scale. Without going into the details about these enhancements making everything look like a Daytime Soap Opera, I'm concentrating on the one thing that will affect the world of horror movies more than any other film genre.  Practical FX. 

Ever since films fell in love with the quick and cheap process of using CGI effects, the incredible art form of practical effects in films have taken a back seat.  Blood and guts have gone digital, and movie monsters look faker than your sister's prom date.  People have become so absorbed with their new fangled hi-def flat screens, that we're globbering up enhanced films quicker than they're coming out.  That's not to say that I'm not for the progression of film quality, because I'm completely for it.  However, comma, enhancements aren't always for the best.  Have you ever looked at your skin under one of those 15x mirrors?  Suddenly you're spending hours prodding pores, plucking hairs, and applying more makeup. HD and higher FPS formatting do somewhat of a similar thing when it comes to film.  It takes something that already looks pretty good, and enhances absolutely EVERYTHING.  I mean EVERYTHING.  It's nearly impossible to hide imperfections in these formats because we ourselves cannot see these imperfections with our naked eye.  It's only after things are enhanced that we think "Christ, do I really look like that?"  For practical effects, this is a death sentence.

As someone who only recently stepped into the HD scene, I've never really noticed the issue.  This past May was the first time I've ever owned a flat screen TV, and it was also the first time I've ever had a blu-ray player.  Call me behind the times all you want, I prefer "broke-ass college student," if I may.  Moving on, the past week I have been finally able to experience Netflix Instant Watch (again, broke college kid) on a 52 inch LCD flatscreen with amazeballs picture quality.  Forgive my ignorance, but as I am not an AV girl, I'm just going to refer to the hyper-realistic clarity as "super HD".  I first watched Pontypool in "super HD" and it was a walk in the park.  The only real special effects were vomiting blood and I didn't have any gripes with it.  Looking at a man's five o' clock shadow in HD however, a little strange to get used to.  Simply out of pure boredom, I watched the final installment of the SAW franchise.  I was curious to see how such an effects driven film was going to do in such a HD setting, and my worst fears were realized.  I commend the people behind SAW 3D for the amount of practical effects used in the film.  Seriously, there were a butt load of practical kills and I was pleasantly surprised to notice.  I never noticed them when I saw the film in theaters, probably because the theater didn't look like this.  It's a theater. It looked cinematical and in a completely different format.  When I watched the film again in "super HD", everything looked so...fake.  Everything looked completely unrealistic and the already over the top kills weren't scary, they were distracting.  The worst was by far the "skin grafted onto the car leather" scene, but every single practical kill looked horribly amateur.

At first I thought it was a fault of the FX artist, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized...it's not.  It is absolutely, 100% not the FX artist's problem that their work looks fake in HD.  Now, before anyone starts to badger me about this, let me explain.  You see, these clarity enhancements make pictures crisper than what our eye can see naturally.   The visual enhancements are done in post-production, after the FX have already been completed and shot.  How can we hold an artist accountable for something completely out of their control?  It would be insane to blame an FX artist for bad coloring when it's physically impossible for them to see their work any clearer than what their eye can give them.  If the FX look fake, filmmakers are going to opt for CGI.  Not only is CGI much cheaper, but if practical FX look as tacky as CGI, filmmakers are just going to go for the cheaper route.  This is a tragedy.  An honest to goodness tragedy.  The only real practical FX that seems to break the mold is The Thing, but that film defies all logic and reason on its own.  Again, let me restate that I'm not against the progression of visual quality, but maybe, just maybe we don't need to get this clear with EVERY film.  In the same sense that we're never going to have a need for What To Expect When You're Expecting 3-D, I don't think we need horror requiring practical FX in 48fps or in ridiculously high picture quality.  It could always just be my special eyes, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject. I've already heard people telling me that this issue can be fixed by changing a setting on the television, but even after making this change, the HD still made some practical FX look like muff cabbage.  Tell me what you think and comment below!