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.

WHERE HAVE ALL THE SCREAM QUEENS GONE?!

The Scream Queen.  In the same respect that Sandra Bullock will forever be associated with her roles in romantic-comedies, the horror genre is well recognized as a genre that keeps reusing the same actresses over and over again.  Horror is a very peculiar genre in that it takes a very particular viewer to appreciate it.  That being said, we're a diehard group of fans and love seeing our favorite actors/actresses over and over and over again.  Witness, the Scream Queen.  A title coined for Fay Wray and perfected by Hazel Court, the scream queen of the modern era is a creature entirely their own.  Most notably, actresses like Linnea Quigley, and Jamie Lee Curtis have chosen horror as their mainstay.  More recently, scream queens tend to be actresses that make their living performing in campy B-Movies for the majority of their career.  While this isn't a bad thing in any facet, it would appear that the true, genuine scream queen is a dying breed. By definition, a scream queen is an actress that has starred in a large amount of horror films in sequence and seems to always return to said genre.  So I ask, where have all the scream queens gone?

Now I must preface this by saying that I'm completely aware of the talents of Danielle Harris, Tiffany Shepis, and Debbie Rochon.  True scream queens know they're scream queens and I don't need to justify their careers on my website.  This is more so focused to the recent splurge of self-proclaimed scream queens.  I'm sorry, but just because you screamed at a CGI monster in a push up bra in two films...you're not a scream queen (I'm looking at you Jaimie Alexander).  It is true that a good load of aspiring actors/actresses get their start in horror films, but it seems as though up and coming talent is taking advantage of that concept.  Bitches need to learn their roots and throw a bone to the genre that got them their start.  I'm not saying that actresses shouldn't do other work outside of horror films, but they need to be deserving enough to call themselves a scream queen...and that includes doing more than just a handful of horror films.  The title of "Scream Queen" isn't given out like Halloween candy, it's earned.

This leads me to quite possibly my biggest issue with the modern "scream queen".  Reality television. The acting business is NOT an easy business to get into, and I can't help but turn into a green monster whenever I see these no-talent bimbos making a name for themselves when they have absolutely zero credibility to back it up.  VH1's Scream Queens infuriated me to absolutely no end. NONE of these girls knew anything about the genre they're trying to break into. In season 2, When Freddy Krueger fell from the ceiling, a girl referred to him as "the boogeyman".  Let's be honest here, she called him the boogeyman because she had no flipping clue who he was.  Don't you dare try to tell me she was referencing the "do you believe in the boogeyman?" line from A Nightmare on Elm Street.  I understand that this is an "acting" competition first and foremost,

but at least do your research before you show up to the set.  I would bet my college tuition money that none of these girls had any clue who Tim Sullivan was. The first season's host, Shawnee Smith, didn't return for the second season and while I complained that Shawnee Smith had the same amount of presence as a turkey sandwich on the first season, I think she was more deserving of the host role than replacement host Jaime King.  The show is about becoming a HORROR actress, a Scream Queen...and I can count the amount of prominent horror films Jaime King has performed in on one hand.

The only thing keeping me somewhat sane is the talented young actress, Jodelle Ferland.  At only 17 years old, the not even legal actress has starred in more horror films than some of the women mentioned in this article combined.  What I admire most about the actress is not only her ability to perform well despite poor scripts or bad direction, but she takes just about every horror role offered to her.  While she's most easily recognized as Alessa in the Silent Hill movie, she's also the one-armed zombie Buckner child from The Cabin In The Woods, baby Carrie in the made for TV remake, a favorite of Wes Craven's more recent films, and even lent her voice for the kid-friendly horror flick, Paranorman.  I said it on twitter and I'll say it here, I'm calling it now, Jodelle Ferland is the second coming of Danielle Harris.  She made a name for herself in the horror genre as a little one, and the horror genre has been very kind to her through the years.  I hate to say it, but this little one is holding my hope for the scream queen survival in her hands.

Special thanks to Cortez the Killer of Planet of Terror for giving me this topic!

SAW REMAKE, SAY WHAT?!

THE LINK TO THE PODCAST WILL BE AVAILABLE RIGHT HERE ONCE IT IS POSTED ONLINE :)

UNDESERVED BUDGETS AND GREENLIT STATUSES: WHY WE KEEP GETTING SUCH TERRIBLE FILMS

The summer of 2012 has arguably been the summer of Superhero Blockbusters, leaving our beloved horror genre to seemingly rot away from the movie theaters.  As of today, the most terrifying films in theaters are a tie between the Katy Perry biopic, and Madea's Witness Protection.  While drinking liquid drain cleaner sounds more appealing than either of those films, it's very strange to be starting the last leg of summer and have absolutely ZERO options for new horror films in the theater.  August is rearing its ugly head to deliver us a platter of new horror films, but many of them (based on trailers alone) are questionable at best.  The only thing I'm really excited for this summer is ParaNorman. That's right, a children's horror movie. That's a sign we've got a problem.  I don't know who is in charge of determining which films are green-lit or how much money a film is alotted in its budget, but my guess is that whoever it is, doesn't take the time to read a damn script.  It would appear that having a quality story means absolutely jack shit these days.  I only say this after enduring hours upon hours of horror films that never deserved to be anything more than chicken scratch on a stained napkin at Denny's.

The worst instance of this epidemic would have to be flashing the old (and I mean OLD) resume card.  There is a reason that athletes, musicians, and even public workers retire at some point.  Retirement doesn't mean that passion for your career has subsided, it just means you aren't quite as good at it as you once were.  Don't believe me?  Compare the voices of aging rockstars, the speed of aging athletes, and the film quality of aging filmmakers.  Ol' Uncle George Romero is the undisputed King of the Zombies, created the most beloved movie monster in nearly a century, and completely changed the face of horror as we know it.  When George Romero was in his prime, he was absolutely unstoppable.  Dawn of the Dead is still hailed as the greatest zombie film of all time and Romero has become the epitome of a horror icon.  No one is more memorable, recognisable, or as idolized as George A. Romero.  Flash forward out of the 1960's and you'll find yourself with an adorable old man who has completely lost his grasp of what makes a good horror film.  If stating the truth about the consistency of Uncle George makes me a blasphemous horror blogger, you're on the wrong site.  George had shown his decline with plenty of his non-zombie films like Bruiser and The Dark Half, but his latest installments of his "...of the Dead" series have showed that Romero has lost his touch.  It's not even the effects that are a problem, it's the storyline and especially so, the dialogue.  My God.  Anyone with half of a brain cell could read the screeplays to these films and know to run away. However, you slap the name "Romero" on a film with the words "dead", "zombie", or "horror", and movie studios will break open their Swiss piggy banks to fund the damn movie. Why? BECAUSE YOU'RE DUMB ENOUGH TO FALL FOR THE NAME.  You don't care about the trailer, you don't care about the dialogue, you don't care about the quality of it at all. You see the name Romero and you drop your panties and run to the theater and Phillip J. Fry style shake wads of money in the faces of ticket vendors.  Luckily the score on Rotten Tomatoes killed My Soul To Take so badly it scared most people away, even though a lot of you still fell for the name Wes Craven.

Another quick way to get unnecessary greenlights and big budgets is finding a way to milk a current cash cow.  All of the highest grossing horror films of the last few yeras have been ones that come from something else. The second someone slaps the title "From the makers of..." to a trailer, everyone loses their mind and has to go see it. Why? BECAUSE THE GUY FROM SAW MADE IT! or BECAUSE IT'S LIKE PARANORMAL ACTIVITY.  Remember what happened when they set up a horror movie like that? You wound up with The Devil Inside and had an ending you had to watch on the internet. Way to go, sheepies. The worst part about it, they were greenlit solely for that reason.  Some of the films that come from "the makers of..." are absolutely TERRIBLE, but the film industry knows your lemming ass will go see something solely because you liked what came before it.  I can't blame people for doing it, but it's a sham.  Running off of "brand name" horror will only get you so far, and then everything you create will be just another Crystal Pepsi failure. 

They say it's not what you know, but rather who you know.  Anyone who doesn't believe this is the truth is either sadly naiive, or the child of a famous person.  As much as the film Chronicle is a hell of a great big budget debut for Max Landis, it's hard to imagine that his screenplay would have gotten any sort of notice if it wasn't because he shares a name with an incredibly well decorated director.  World War Z is at best, an average zombie novel and in no way/shape/form should have ever crossed into the territory of film adaptation, but when it's written by a guy who sprung from the loins of Mel fucking Brooks, getting a publishing house to take a look at your zombie book isn't going to be difficult.  I'm not saying that anyone who comes from well established Hollywood parents is innately untalented, I'm saying they have a hell of a lot easier of a time achieving their dreams.  Some of the world's most talented filmmakers will never experience what it's like to see their film completed with the best of actors and the best of cameras simply because the film industry is really tough.  Add that to the fact that there are too many mediocre, yet entitled kids trying to do the exact same thing and there's no more room at the inn for Johnny Moviemaker.   

The absolute worst, most despicable offender of unnecessary greenlighting and budget approvals, is none other than the shameless associations.  I'm talking about films like Vampires Suck and the upcoming Warm Bodies.  These are films that are made simply to try and steal some of the money train off of Twilight. TWILIGHT. Of all the fucking things.  First of all, the lowest grossing Harry Potter movie has earned more money than all of the Twilight films COMBINED and yet this shit is producing unnecessary spin-offs? While Warm Bodies isn't a vampire romance, it is a zombie romance where the zombie looks like a pretty boy and it makes me want to violently shake.  This film would have NEVER been made if it hadn't been for Hollywood trying to replace the cash flow of the Twi-hards. It's situations like this that frustrate me to no end.  There are so many films that struggle to find the funding, films that DESERVE the funding, that will never reach it all because of the way the "game" is played.  It saddens me to admit that the world of cinema isn't funded by passion, creativity, or quality anymore. Movies now only exist because of dollar signs, and that my friends is very, very sad. 

A LESS THAN SOBER REVIEW OF THE REMAKE OF WHEN A STRANGER CALLS

NOTE: I composed this review a month or so ago and have absolutely no recollection of writing it.  I came across it in my blog drafts and after a couple dozen requests from my twitter followers, I'm releasing it here for you all to see.  Be warned: alcohol is a hell of a drug.

In case you haven't been reading me for a while, you should know by now that only I'm a half step above a fetus. That's right, Ms. BJ-C is only 22 years old.  That being said, I have no shame in admitting that I still live with my parents while fulfilling my collegiate degree and they still pay for my shit. Meaning, my parents pay my tab at the bar...sometimes, okay...most of the time. I guess they're figuring that paying for my tab will equate to my being a designated driver on the nights I stay at home with my skype boyfriend.  They're right. Weeelll, Tonight is one of those nights!  I came home after an eventful night (with the parental units on my bicycle that does include a bell and basket) to pop on FEARnet.  My mom is a HUGE horror junkie and the sole reason I am the huge geek I am today. I have a confession: I just spent twenty or so minutes proofreading that last paragraph. AAAAANYWAY, my Mom wasn't ready to tackle the SAW franchise because she wanted to see them all at once, so I put on the remake version of one of her favorite films, When A Stranger Calls.  Although Camilla Belle isn't quite the doe eyed teenager as Carol Kane was, her eyebrows more than make up for it. They're distracting, there I said it. Her brows were distracting when she was the little girl that fed her sandwich to dinosaurs in The Lost World, and they're distracting now.

So the one thing I've noticed more than anything, is that Camilla Belle is the WORST babysitter ever. It's been about an hour and she hasn't even checked the kids. I'm sorry, but as a legally registered daycare provider, you can check a God damn room without waking them.  There's a way to check the room without screaming and causing a ruckus, so you should be fired already.  I'm surprised these rich assholes don't have nanny cams hidden in the damn wallpaper lining and are calling every twenty seconds to tell you how their soy-allergen children need you to filter their bottled water. Regardless, this film was made after 2005 so can we just discuss that NO ONE USES A LANDLINE.  If she wasn't suspicious and freaked out by random calls to a landline phone, she's a god damn idiot. These folks are RICH, chances are they have their blue tooths or whatever glued to their heads, NO ONE is going to call their landline.  So her character can't use her cell phone, right? I'm sorry, I understand your cell went over minutes, but that doesn't render it useless.  Chances are, your douchebag friends/boyfriend aren't going to be considerate enough to call the landline of the home you're watching, considering they weren't nice enough to be careful about your minutes in the first place.  I'm really into continuity, but apparently the director was not. Add that to the fact that the police are uncontentious and also totally cool with swearing and we've gotten ourselves a movie. Can I just say how much I love the red squiggly line spellcheck thing? It's seriously saving my ass right now.  Moving on.  If these people are rich enough to have a maid that cleans everything including the kitchen sink, why don't they have a nanny?  CONTINUITY, DO YOU SPEAK IT MOTHERFUCKER?!

So then out of nowhere her ex-bff shows up? Wait. What? They're fighting. Blondie bits played a few rounds of tonsil hockey with Browilla Belle's boy toy and now she shows up to apologize?  Does this screenwriter understand how teenagers work?  These bitches would be passive aggressively talking about each other on facebook, eerrr...at this time it would have been myspace.  The fact that she showed up to make amends and apologize is far less believable than Browilla Belle thinking she doesn't need to check the children.  I have an idea. From now on, filmmakers have to meet with actual teenagers before writing teenage characters.  If this behavior was performed, we wouldn't have Diablo Cody dialogue or When a Stranger Calls behavior.  Sound good? Okay.

That concludes a less than sober review of the remake of When A Stranger Calls. I imagine this would have been far better suited as a vlog. Let me know what you'd prefer in the comments section.

:)

10 ACTORS WHO WERE IMPOSSIBLE TO TAKE SERIOUSLY IN HORROR

For many aspiring actors and actresses, the horror genre has been incredibly kind as the jumping off base for successful careers.  Who can forget the infamous blue bulge of Kevin Bacon in Friday the 13th or the ill-fated sucked through the bed death of Johnny Depp in A Nightmare On Elm Street?  Oscar winners, teen heartthrobs, and even Dame Judi Dench have all tampered in the genre of blood and boobs.  That being said, horror isn't a genre for everyone.  It just isn't.  Those that do not get their start in horror may struggle being taken seriously in the genre after making a name for themselves as something else. It would be like Michael Cera playing anything that isn't Michael Cera.  That being said, let's take a look at 10 actors who made the decision to be in a horror movie...and really, really shouldn't have.

10) MATTHEW McCONAUGHEY & RENEE ZELLWEGGER IN

TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE: THE NEXT GENERATION

I'm admittedly pushing it a little bit with this one considering they weren't nearly as big of stars back then as they are now, but both of these two had performed in a little movie called Dazed & Confused before this one.  They both became huge stars just two years later and the marketing people behind TCM 4 suddenly decided to completely refocus the box art and publicity material to make the duo the center of attention.  The film was to be a torture-romantic comedy. The film played theatrically in less than twenty theaters and for good reason.  Not only is the film itself horrendous, but why these two ever signed onto this piece of garbage is beyond me.

 09) KELLY ROWLAND IN

FREDDY VS. JASON

Kelly Rowland wasn't the first singer to be in a horror movie and the late 1990's/early 2000's were really into having hip-hop, r&b, and rap stars to dive into horror films.  I don't know what casting guru came up with it, but just about all of the attempts were absolutely ridiculous.  The one I found the most distracting, was Kelly Rowland.  All of you should recognize her as the not-Beyonce girl from Destiny's Child that you actually knew the name of.  Well, after the group split up and Beyonce became a superstar, Kelly decided acting was her forte and the whole time we kept thinking "...why isn't this Beyonce?"

08) CHESTER BENNINGTON IN

SAW 3-D

He tried so hard, and got so far, but in the end...IT DOESN'T EVEN MAAATTTTERRRR. He was glued to the chair, they shaved his hair, but in the end...IT DOESN'T EVEN MAAAATTTERRRR. They put their trust in casting directors, pushed hard to transcend his singing career, but when he failed the trap, this is the song we were all thiiiiiiiiiiinking of. They tried so hard...didn't get far, but in the end...IT DOESN'T EVEN MAAAAATTTEEERRRRR.

07) BROOKE SHIELDS IN

THE MIDNIGHT MEAT TRAIN

This one is a little interesting considering Brooke Shields actually got her start in horror films as a child victim in the cult hit Alice, Sweet Alice.  However, after rising from child stardom, she became the most memorable Calvin Klein model in history, and had that stint with Michael Jackson.  Brooke Shields became a total IT-girl and although has plenty of acting credits to her name, nothing will ever be bigger than her "You want to know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing." ads that arguably put Calvin Klein on the map.  So when she popped up as the super artsy woman in control of Bradley Cooper's career in The Midnight Meat Train, it was ridiculously hard to separate between "model" and "serious actress". 

06) ANNASOPHIA ROBB IN

THE REAPING

I really shouldn't be picking on a kid here considering she probably had absolutely no choice in her casting decisions at this point in her career.  Despite this being a horrendous film to begin with, AnnaSophia Robb had been making a name for herself playing just about the cutest little blonde girl since a Fanning sister.  She was an American Girl Doll, one of Willy Wonka's golden ticket winners, and the coveted female lead in Bridge to Terabithia. Trying to picture her as anything but sugar glazed adorableness was next to impossible, and trying to act alongside Hilary Swank was almost as painful.

05) CARY ELWES IN

SAW

Leigh Whannell and James Wan burst their way onto the horror scene and spawned the most financially successful horror franchise in nearly a decade with the torture thriller SAW.  While the film contained a multitude of actors, the major plot was centered around two individuals trapped in a bathroom.  Those two: Leigh Whannell and Westley himself-Cary Elwes.  The whole time I was just waiting for him to throw the saw and call Leigh Whannell's character a warthog-faced buffoon or look at Jigsaw and say "as you wish" before hacking off his leg. 

04) CHRISTIAN SLATER IN

ALONE IN THE DARK

This one has the potential to be blamed on the poor quality of the film as a whole, but Christian Slater's decision to play the leading male in Uwe Boll's Alone In The Dark was probably a worse idea than blowing up Westerberg High.  After making a name for himself as a cult film icon, jumping into the leading role of a thriller/action/horror flick was ill planned and difficult to believe.

03) EMBETH DAVIDTZ IN

THIR13EN GHOSTS

 I'm really going to show my age here on this one, but that's okay.  (EDIT: I am 22...I saw Army of Darkness waaaaay after I already developed my association for her with another character) I know that she was the French maid in Shindler's List in all that, but for me, Embeth Davidtz will ALWAYS be Miss Honey from the movie Matilda.  When I was in first grade, I had a teacher that was so alike with Davidtz character in the film that I become borderline obsessed with developing telekinesis and hoping my teacher would adopt me. Shortly after the film, she also played the loving mother in Bicentennial Man, further ingraining her as the sweetest and most woman in the entire world.  When she popped up as a "bad guy" in Thir13en Ghosts, I couldn't take her seriously. The entire time I just kept watching the screen wondering why Miss Honey was being so mean and manipulative.  I couldn't shake the kind hearted characters off of her. I'm sorry Miss Honey, please still adopt me?

 02) MILA KUNIS IN

AMERICAN PSYCHO 2

Wait, someone actually thought that we were going to believe that Meg Griffin & Jackie from That 70's Show is a cold and calculated murderer who wanted to seduce William Shatner?  You've got to be kidding me.  Mila Kunis has one of those voices that you can hear ten years later and know immediately who it belongs to.  Watching her try to be threatening made me just think of the moments on Family Guy when Meg loses her mind in romantic obsessions.  I know I can't be alone on that one.
 

01) DANIEL FRANZESE IN

 I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

 There's a good chunk of you reading this right now with a blank look on your face wondering who the hell is Daniel Franzese and why is he number 1 if you have no idea who he is. Before I go into what he's normally known for, let's look at his role in the ISOYG remake, shall we?  In ISOYG, Daniel plays "Stanley" a rapist with a penchant for watching who loves to video tape his friends' actions of torture and raping a poor girl named Jennifer.  He does all of this with pure delight and the audience is none the pleaser when he finally gets what he deserves and has his eyes pecked out of his head by crows.  He performs with vengeance and generates a character the audience grows to hate with just about every fiber of their being. Well...before ISOYG, Daniel Franzese was...

YEP. HE'S DAMIAN FROM MEAN GIRLS.  DAMIAN "TOO GAY TO FUNCTION", "SHE DOESN'T EVEN GO HERE", "I WAS REALLY BUSY WITH CHOIR", IS THE CAMERA MAN RAPIST IN ISOYG.  To his credit, that goes to show just how talented of an actor he is to play both of these roles but god damn, the second I realized that's who he was, I turned off the movie.  I really did.  It took me three sittings to finally watch the remake. The first time was because I was so pissed they remade it in the first place, the second time was because I realized who he was, and on the third time I actually sat through it.  Don't get me wrong, he wasn't terrible in the film...BUT HE'S DAMIAN. HE'S COMEDIC. AHHH. My life is ruined.

RANDOM RAMBLINGS FROM BJ-C

Maybe it's because I've got a hell of a lot of dance training under my belt, but I've never realized just how DREADFUL the opening cheer routine in Buffy The Vampire Slayer is. I get that it's high school, but I was cringing in my seats at the poor unison of the dance and the horrific technique of Kristy Swanson. I know that this is a cult classic, but when made, this film had a pretty decent budget. You'd think they could have spent more than five minutes on some choreography? Maybe? Jesus. Can I just be hired to fix scenes like this in horror films? The exact same thing should be said about Megan Fox trying to spin a flag in Jennifer's Body.  I'm sorry, but if you're going to have a character be a dancer, or a cheerleader, or a flag twirler, or a baton twirler, or an ice skater, or anything else, don't half ass it. It's unrealistic and insulting to those that actually give a rat's ass about performing. If you're going to go balls out to make yourself cry in a scene or believably look terrified of a CGI monster...learn the skills your character would have. Thanks.

I know I mentioned this earlier this week on my review of Season 1 of Holliston, but I think it's a question that deserves repeating.  Can someone explain to me why Laura Ortiz isn't getting more work? Seriously, I really want to know.  She's beautiful, she's got a hell of an unique voice, she's got great range (as seen between Hills Have Eyes compared to Holliston), and her comedic timing is impeccable. I mean that, she makes lines funny that I honestly don't think Adam Green wrote to be nearly as funny as they become.  I just, I don't get it.  Why are horrendous actresses like Amanda Seyfried and Vanessa Hudgens still cranking film after film while Laura Ortiz is being completely brushed over? She's not only talented, but a solid individual who even sat down with John Squires of Freddy in Space for an interview.  Anytime an actress is willing to do an interview for a blog, they immediately skyrocket to a higher level of respect in my book. She deserves the very best, START CASTING HER.

I have a hankering suspicious that Chernobyl Diaries is going to tank at the box office.  While I think the premise is actually pretty unique and the Paranormal Activity name might reel in some people, I have got a horrifying statement to let you all in on.  There's an overwhelming amount of people that have no idea what the Chernobyl Disaster was. I shit you not.  Before the end of the semester I was discussing how I want to see this film simply to see radiation mutated freaks and they had no idea how I knew they'd be radiation mutants.  I stared blankly and asked as non-judgemental as possible, "Do you know what happened at Chernobyl?"  All of them said "No."  ALL OF THEM.  These people are graduating college with legitimate degrees and had absolutely no idea what Chernobyl was, where it happened, or how devastating it was to those around and involved...and I don't know, THE REST OF THE FREAKING WORLD.  The sad part is, it's not just those people.  There's an overwhelming amount of people online asking what Chernobyl is and what happened and if it's a real place. I'm serious. Google it. It'll make your head spin.

The surprisingly solid film Chronicle (penned by the uncontrollably sexy spawn of John Landis, Max) came out on DVD today.  I'm not sure if this is the sort of film that I'm going to add to my DVD collection but I would definitely say that it more than deserves a rental or addition to the Netflix queue.  Max Landis has a strong grasp on character development and generating an original twist on the telekinetic powers that seemed to have been overrun by blood soaked prom queens and the adorable spawn of Danny DeVito and Rhea Pearlman. 

Can we go back to the vampires resembling the ones of the late 80's and early 90's?  Now that Twatlight is almost on its way out, I think that our fanged friends need a re-vamp so to speak.  The vampires of The Lost Boys, Near Dark, and Buffy The Vampire Slayer are a fabulous balance of sex appeal, fear, and edge.  We really need to bring that back.  Late 80's and early 90's may have given us some questionable fashion choices and strange hairstyles, but they made some killer fucking vampires.  *sigh* They just don't make them like they used to.

YOU LIKE HORROR? BUT...YOU...YOU DON'T LOOK LIKE A HORROR FREAK.

During my Holliston fest last night (see previous post) the final episode definitely struck a hell of a heart string with me.  Over the past three years, I've been criticized for writing a horror blog as a woman, as someone under the age of twenty five, and most recently...for not "looking" the part.  Adam Green's character on Holliston is hopelessly in love with a very anti-typical horror gal complete with blonde hair, cutoff jean skirts, and perfectly manicured everything.  Adam and Joe pick on her for "not ever having bought anything from Hot Topic" and she makes a comment on "missing the memo on wearing black" before completely transforming her appearance to fit in with the rest of the convention.  As funny as it was, it would be far funnier if this wasn't the constant annoyance "girls like me" deal with every fucking day.  While Adam Green and plenty other celebs featured on the show pick on the things they deal with as celebrities (having iMDB pull things offline, being harassed by uberfans, etc) with a sense of a light hearted nature, they're also celebrities with the ability to fulfill their dreams and not struggling twenty one year olds fighting hordes of twi-hards and sexist horror trolls. They've got people to do that for them.  Not only that, but I'm pretty sure having a fan pester them about their new movie isn't as insulting as "until you have tattoos, you're worthless to your genre". I'm not dismissing their trials of the shit they put up with as "lesser", it's just...I can't exactly explain it. The image above is an actual screen cap from an anonymous comment I received on one of my Cabin In The Woods articles.  I hate to admit it, but this comment is one of the more tame that I've received over the years. I gotta admit, it's easier to take an insult than graphic sexual fantasy requests for video blogs from strangers.

No tattoos or colored hair? Who do you think you are?!

Anyway, I posted the comment to the Day of the Woman facebook page to get some feedback from all of you on whether or not a horror "look" is required to take someone seriously and I was pleasantly confirmed that you all aren't judgmental and ignorant (not that I ever thought you were). However, while YOU may be smart enough to understand that your exterior doesn't define your interior, there is an overwhelming amount of people that haven't been able to break that barrier. When I first started writing Day of the Woman, I'll be completely honest when I admit I garnered a good amount of my "following" because the idea of a beauty queen writing about horror movies was interesting or different or something.  I only know this because the comments I've received in comparison from 2009 to 2012 have changed drastically.  I sometimes pull the "I'm not a stereotype" card every once in a while, but when I first started...it was almost a shtick people used to talk about me with.  As much as I enjoyed making friends with other horror bloggers and readers, I was always wondering if they read me because of my content or because I was some novelty item.  Even deeper than that...why was I being marketed this way? I've discussed previously on the topic of having tattoos, but it seems that this judgement stems further than the tattoo parlor.  (PS; I am wearing a strapless top and if any of you say I get harassing comments " because I post pictures like that" you're a slut shaming son of a bitch and you can leave my blog right now because again, it's my blog and I can do whatever I want and a human is entitled to dress however they want without it constituting"asking for it") I just want to know, why did everyone make it such a big deal that I didn't fit in the horror "mold" if it "doesn't matter" what a horror fan looks like? Why is everyone commenting "it's your brain that counts" when people are saying "read this girl she's beautiful AND smart"? Why should it matter if I'm a baton twirling beauty queen? It shouldn't, and it doesn't. It doesn't fucking matter because you are who you are and that's all who you are. 

That being said, I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I've felt an awful lot of pressure to change my appearance to appeal to the horror crew.  The way it was presented to me was honestly exactly what I've been trying to fight against.  I was always wanting to put a hoop in my nose instead of a stud and do you know who pushed me to the hoop side? You all did. When I wasn't sure whether or not I could take the plunge for a darker shade of lipstick, it was my horror comrades that really told me to go for it while my pageant friends told me I'd look "goth".  As a woman, I constantly have to fight twice as hard to be taken seriously when writing about a genre that is arguably (stereotypically) male dominated. To top that, I'm also twenty one years old and thanks to my generation's obsession with Twilight, I also now have to fight harder to earn my street cred and prove my chops.  EVEN FURTHER, I don't have Elvira tattoos or an edgy haircut or a wardrobe consisting of corsets and striped tights. I just don't.  That isn't to say that I don't adore that "look" it's just not my personal style.  It does appear that whenever I do a video blog where I appear "darker" or "spookier" it garners far more attention and hits than my typical pajama clad rants.  Some may argue it's the subject matter...but I gotta tell you, hits don't lie. 

Friend and fellow female in horror Krystal Fancey Beck easily gave the most provocative of opinions on the topic, and she's so right it's scary.  "Here's the thing: you're kind of fucked either way. I HAVE the look- y'know, the one that supposedly earns you Horror Points or whatever- and  it's already been suggested that us SpookyOnTheOutside folks are "trying too hard", wearing a uniform, or maybe even overcompensating for not possessing the right amount of horror knowledge. You know what? I wear/decorate myself with the things that make me happy and make me feel good about myself. Yes, it gets me some attention. Sometimes good, sometimes not so good. And while way too many people assume at least part of the reason I prefer to adorn myself in such a manner is because my poor, fragile self esteem craves the attention... dude, I have a good case of social anxiety. Attention's one of the last things I want! But I've weighed both options and feeling content and, ultimately, true to myself trumps anything else. I'm sick to death of people trying to feel better about themselves by making other people feel shitty. I'm sick of standards. I actually saw someone make a list of criteria that you have to have in order to call yourself a horror fan by their vastly superior standards. You know what *I* think makes you a 'true' horror fan? Liking horror movies. I don't care what you look like, if you've never seen ____, or if you don't like ____. I don't care who or even really *what* you know. If you've this, this, and this in the horror community or if you just simply... watch horror movies. I DON'T CARE. If you like horror and are nice to me, we're cool- let's talk. Ultimately, stay to to yourself, and do what genuinely makes you happy, without concern that you're living up to anyone else's ridiculous standards." Yep. That about covers it. She's absolutely on par. We as female horror fans are damned if you do, damned if you don't, and that's the god's honest truth.  Hell, even when a "SpookyOnTheOutside" type of girl was confronted at the convention on Holliston...she was called a poser at the end because her day job was working at Express.  The sad fact of it all, is that this is something far deeper than just convention etiquette. To be honest, women in general are judged based upon their appearances, and there's this obscene concept that women are somehow new to the idea of being fans of genre entertainment. I don't know why people think this is a new thing, but it's a weird epidemic I've experienced first hand far too often.  It's like we cause annoyance just by being in the room because we're assumed to either be posers tagging along and trying to impress someone or we're some social inept mouth breathers jonesing for an autograph.

It's as if women are constantly torn between choosing a side in the debate of "pretty vs. intelligent" and it's total bullshit. I would like to bat my eyelashes and poke my dimple to say "oh, we're all a giant happy horror family who accepts all forms" but that's a bold faced lie.  Do I surround myself with non-judgemental people who are the cat's meow? Obviously, I choose not to surround myself with douchebags...but it seems that every article I write is under microscopic scrutiny and even a misplaced comma makes me a "stupid girl who knows nothing about horror".

Kristy Jett and Zach Shildwachter: Two of the biggest horror nerds I know at the Amityville house looking very "non-horror"

This isn't only a feminine issue either.  I think women are more specific in that we have to fit into either the "overly geeky super-fan" or the "gothic sex kitten" roles to find acceptance in convention land...but men experience this just as much. I'll be the first to admit that I could count on one hand the amount of men that go to a convention in something other than a black t-shirt (not including celebs or cosplayers).  As a woman, I don't think I'm really qualified to speak much more on the topic, but maybe someone with a penis will tackle this issue one of these days.  Honestly though, this nonsense is absurd. We should be supporting each other and taking care of one another. We're already the weird kids in class for worshipping murderers, torturers, and monsters...the last thing we want to do is generate animosity towards each other.  So I have a preposition for you all.  BE WHO YOU ARE. If that means wearing black all the time, rock it out. If that means wearing frilly white lace and rainbow socks, work that shit, but for the love of Cthulhu...don't change who you are because you have to "fit in".  We love you for who you are, as you are. 

IF YOU TEXT IN THE THEATER, YOU'RE A DICK.

The glow of my nightmares...

Cell phones astonish me.  I'm proud to admit that I'm one of the last of a generation that didn't always have cell phones in the way that we have now.  Despite popular belief, I was alive for the Patrick Bateman cell phone and I definitely remember the super hero strength of Nokias and Nextels.  Unfortunately, I'm still young enough to be lumped in with a generation that would be absolutely clueless without a cell phone.  I'll be honest, the only phone numbers I have memorized are the ones I needed to have memorized in case the babysitter my mom hired for the night was psychotic. It's no surprise that cell phones, and more specifically, smart phones, are an incredible asset to society and our technological advances.  Unfortunately, we have become a little more than dependent on our all powerful cellphones and it's been intervening with aspects of our life where texting/googling/facebooking/tweeting/tumbling/angrybirding isn't acceptable. 

Many of you know that I'm an acting major at my University, but I also work as a House Manager for many of our productions and am one of the go-to people for delivering the friendly (yet threatening) curtain speeches to ask audience members not to text during the performance.  It's to be expected that in a collegiate environment there would be issues with students not following the rules but last year, the texting issue turned into an epidemic to the point where many professors are failing students taking theatre classes if they are caught texting during a performance.  I'm dead serious.  Just on my own watch, I've removed (and subsequently failed) over 20 students in the last year.  I just want to know, WHY AREN'T USHERS IN MOVIE THEATERS DOING THE SAME?! Honestly.  Do your fucking job.  I haven't been to a movie theater in the better half of a decade where I actually saw an usher do more than grab a ticket stub and open the door when it was over.  This lack of attention has given audiences this sense of freedom because there's no one telling them they're wrong.  Audiences are left to fend for themselves and if anyone has witnessed a scuffle between audience members, it becomes a giant fight on the internet.  Name calling, slurs, and Lord of the Flies-esque conflicts occur...and unless someone gets off of their ass to complain to the usher sitting outside the theater, nothing happens.  That's another thing, why the hell are people getting so defensive when asked to put your phone away?  If there were actual ushers/house managers enforcing the rules of keeping the cell phones in your pockets and your hands out of your partners, I think going to the movies would be far more enjoyable for everyone.

"Excuse me, you're rude...and who the hell still uses phones like that?"

IMAX’s CEO Greg Foster told Deadline that he seemed to like the idea of relaxing the absolute ban on phone use in theaters. He stated that his 17 year old son “constantly has his phone with him,” he says. “We want them to pay $12 to $14 to come into an auditorium and watch a movie. But they’ve become accustomed to controlling their own existence.” Banning cell phone use may make them “feel a little handcuffed.” I'm sorry, but exactly what in the hell are you on?  You may be the CEO of IMAX, but do you actually sit in the theaters and watch how your audiences interact?  They're not NOT going to the movies because they can't text, they're not going because it's too damn expensive.  I can buy a fifth of Vodka and watch Netflix and eat whatever I want and lay slovishly on the couch for the same price as going to a movie these days.  A commenter on the deadline page wrote: " In 1962, a kid could buy a ticket for a matinee for $0.35. In today’s dollars, that same ticket would be $2.63. Only it’s not. It’s $10-$13. Do you know what $10 today would have been in 1962? It would have been $75.76"   

Greg Foster is only promoting this idea because he wants a thicker pocket, not because he actually cares about the status of the theater.  If he did, he'd understand that texting in the theater is abysmal and we should be teaching these ungrateful little snots some manners instead of catering to their poor behavior. Another issue I have with Foster's statement is “But they’ve become accustomed to controlling their own existence.” Controlling your existence?!  You live at home, your parents make your food, and you're not even paying the god damn bill for the miniature computer sitting in your palm riddled with improper uses of the word 'you're' and nudes of your underage ex girlfriend.  I hate to break it to you, kid, but sometimes you have to play by other people’s rules.  What is so god damn important that you feel it necessary to be using your phone?  Movies are supposed to be an escape from reality, and people are deeming it acceptable to keep dragging it right back in.   It honestly makes me sick to know that instead of holding these brats accountable for their actions, there are big wigs in the movie industry that would rather roll over and continue on giving these kids a false sense of entitlement.  Keep it on up, Hollywood.  You're just helping Maury Povich further his career with your constant enabling.

Proper punishment for texting in the theater.

I don't know about you, but I think movie theaters should spend less time focusing on getting the unappreciative douchers into the theatre and instead concentrate on those that will actually enjoy the theater experience.  Sell alcohol in the theaters for 21+ showings, offer kettlecorn, lower the prices of movie candy so we'll stop smuggling in our own in our bras and instead buy yours, clean the god damn floors once in a while, and stop reserving more than one screen for a film just because Adam Sandler is in it.  Seriously, I couldn't see DRIVE in theaters because the one closest to me thought that Jack & Jill was a better option.  The biggest problem of the movie theater experience these days has less to do with the audience and more to do with the theater staff themselves.  I hate to say it, but you've created your own monsters.  Do your part and tame the beast yourselves.  

Also: God Bless The Alamo Drafthouse.

THE HUNGER GAMES VS. BATTLE ROYALE: THE CLASH OF TWEENS & HORROR HIPSTERS

I had spent about an hour or so trying to record a vlog of my thoughts on this particular topic, but my computer sucks.  I've chosen the primitive practice of typing, which in all honesty, is probably a better thing.  At least you can read this in a far less sarcastic and snarky tone as apposed to the one I was using in the vlog.  As a twenty one year old college co-ed, I was smack dab in the middle of the target audience for Suzanne Collins' trilogy when the novels were first released.  At the wake of saying farewell to my wizarding Harry Potter novels, The Hunger Games were quick to fill the void my years at Hogwarts left behind and the one Twatlight was NEVER going to.  A premise of teens in a dystopian society randomly selected to fight to the death seemed like the lovechild of Shirley Jackson's short story "The Lottery" and Richard Bachman (Stephen King)'s The Running Man.  I couldn't wait to get my hands on it.  I cranked through the book in a single sitting and I was floored by how much I enjoyed it.  Fast forward to about four months later when I was exposed to a little Japanese movie called Battle Royale.

Fast forward to now when The Hunger Games is breaking box office records, generating memes out of its ass, and creating fictional romances that are wetting teenage panties faster than Edward Cullen ever did.  Out of all of this, the horror hipster patrol has been crying foul and pushing up their glasses harder than they ever have before.  Why? BECAUSE THE HUNGER GAMES IS STEALING FROM BATTLE ROYALE ALSKDJF;ALSKJFALSKJF! Seriously? Seriously?! Get over yourselves. All of you.  We're bitching about this and yet we remain silent when every single romantic comedy in the history of everything contains the exact same plots, the exact same results, with the exact same character archetypes?  Coooome OOOOOONNN. Suzanne Collins herself has repeatedly denied having ever seen or even heard of Battle Royale until she’d already turned in the manuscript of the trilogy’s first novel, and you know something...I believe her.  The guy who created the screenplay for Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory had never seen the Gene Wilder original, and it shows.  Things like this DO happen.  After Collins had turned in her manuscript, she asked her editor if she should see Battle Royale, to which he replied "No, I don’t want that world in your head. Just continue with what you’re doing,’” This was all mentioned in the New York Times last April and she's apparently still not seen the film or read the manga.  Despite the "teens battling to the death with one survivor" concept, there is absolutely nothing else similar between the two. 

The Hunger Games trilogy is less about the actual games themselves, but about the underlying corrupt government that has forced the citizens of the "districts" into these games and their treatment throughout the year.  The trilogy mainly focuses on the citizens residing in the districts outside of The Capitol (the elite society/people of power) and how they attempt to survive the mistreatment and gain their independence from those oppressing them.  The games are a major factor in wanting to escape the control of The Capitol, but it is far less about the terror of the games and more about overthrowing the government...and the personal lives, relationships, and feelings of those enduring these games.  Battle Royale on the other hand, is far more sinister.  The film/mangas are predominately overwhelmed by the gore, brutality, and horror surrounding the means in which those fighting the battle use in order to survive.  The design on paper may be the same, but the look and feel of these two are entirely different.  Comparing these two are like comparing two siblings.  Same sets of DNA, with remarkably different results.    

The things people have been complaining about in the wake of this all are frightening to me.  First things first, for those that are "boycotting" THG because it "stole from BR", get over yourself.  I'm pretty sure your lack of $7.00 really made a major dent in its box office record opening for a non-sequel and you alone are going to be the reason two and three aren't made. Congratulations.  Second, people are claiming that if BR was given a proper American release, we wouldn't be in this situation anyway.  Even if that were true, it wouldn't have made a difference because Americans are lazy and wouldn't want to read subtitles AND they would have watered down the gore to get a precious rating.  Chances are, THG would have just been made faster but as an American remake.  On that subject, people are mad that the American remake will never happen.  ARE YOU SERIOUS?!  So first we bitch and moan that we're Americanizing films and now we're going to be mad that it isn't happening? Oh get off it. If anything, be thankful THG exists because it is shining new light to a film you love so much. The L.A. Times confirms that Battle Royale’s DVD sales have gone up with the success of The Hunger Games, so there you go. The film you hate SO MUCH is paying it forward to the one they apparently ripped off.   

SINCE WHEN DID BEING A HORROR FAN BECOME SUCH A PISSING CONTEST?

AMERICAN HORROR STORY'S TATE LANGDON: THE REPLACEMENT FOR EDWARD CULLEN?

This is my first and final warning. This article will contain mild spoilers about the show American Horror Story and it's intriguing character "Tate". I will do my very best not to spoil plot lines in the show, but I will be spoiling some of the despicable things that his character has committed over the course of this show. So please. If you don't want to know, don't continue reading this article. ~BJ-C

Last night wrapped up the first season of Ryan Murphy's newest addiction worthy show, American Horror Story.  A few articles ago, I spoke very highly of the new series and marked it as the show that may have saved horror themed television series.  The Golden Globe nominated series has been a thrill ride every week and deserves all of the praise it has been receiving.  The character that seems to have taken the world by storm, however, is Evan Peters' portrayal of every teenager's heartthrob ghost, Tate.  Now, I'll be honest with you when I say I was totally a Tate fan-girl at the beginning.  Evan Peters is a total babe and his character was so evil and yet remarkably charming.  He has the surfer hair with the "boy next door" looks encompassed by a sense of danger.  Although a total bad ass, he's extremely romantic and seems to know exactly what to say at all the right moments.  What girl under the age of 25 wouldn't be cast under his spell? 

 The relationship between Tate and living girl, Violet became the newest fictional couple to be "shipped" all over the internet and was given the name "Violate".  If you just type "violate" or "tate langdon" on the tumblr search bar, you'll be bombarded with hundreds of thousands of images of the two that have been created by fans of the show.  Okay, so he had a couple of selfless acts, he got her a flower, told her he loved her, and protected her a bit.  That's really endearing and I will not take that away from him.  He really did genuinely care about the girl and it was actually sort of nice to see a character trying so hard to make someone else happy. But...

 

This is a huge but here, let's be honest when I say this...he's a fucking psychopath.  To quote the character directly "In 1994 I set my mom's boyfriend on fire and then I shot fifteen kids at Westfield High. I murdered the gay couple who lived here before you and I raped your wife".  Wow.  Let's add that up to the fact he's a compulsive liar, manipulative, let the demon in the basement tear apart a girl's face, almost killed a kid who had been there for one night because Violet made eyes at him, and talks shit to his mother?  Wow.  This is marriage material right here.  Yet all it takes is for him to let the water works flow and to stammer out an "I love you" and girls everywhere are dropping their panties. 

Are you fucking kidding me?  This kid is a psychotic nut job and yet he just needs to pout his lips and suddenly all is forgiven.  I have been doing a bit of trolling on the fandom message boards just to find out what the hell these girls are thinking, and the results are quite horrifying.  "He’s twisted, he’s an imbecile for what he has done. But are we perfect? You are hiding yourself behind a grey face [this means posted anonymously]. I can easily say that you are a coward. I can say that I had my ”fucked up” boyfriends. And I haven’t said that “if treats me ok I’ll love him” No. I said that I love his way of loving Violet. There is difference."  But are we perfect?! I'm sorry. I'm not perfect in the slightest but I'm also not running around raping my girlfriend's mother or shooting up the school.  You can love someone as much as you want, but if you're a bad person...you're a bad person. No amount of compassion you show towards another person will ever change that.  Oh! Oh! But he loves her sooo much and he protects her! Yeah, so does the police department, but I'm not writing fanfics about that, now am I?

"I think you can tell Tate has changed though, because he asks Gabe not to look at him when he was about to kill him, and he wasn’t killing him to hurt anyone, he was doing it to make Violet happy. Which is sick and twisted, but so adorable and cute. Idk man, I just hope that Violet in the next series gets to see the difference in Tate, and that her Dad tells her that he accepts what he has done." Wait, what?  Does this girl realize that she's essentially saying that she would accept people like The Columbine Shooters, or The men who killed Matthew Shepard or I don't know, PEOPLE WHO RAPE THEIR GIRLFRIEND'S MOMS because "they've changed?" This is just demented. Sick. And. Demented.

I blame Edward Cullen for this.  That god damn franchise made it okay for girls to "fall in love" with complete lunatics and society made it cool for women to worship the grounds of men who deserve prison time.  At least Violet had the mind to leave his crazy ass, even in the afterlife.  

/endrant.