All the Horror 2019 Movie Challenge

It’s that time of year again! Time for the 31 horror movie challenge! During the month of October, I am planning to watch, and I challenge you to watch, 31 horror movies. Each day, I will add a movie with a brief (and yes, I know I am not known for being brief) analysis. Instead of a separate blog entry for each of the 31 movies, I am going to add to this entry, then post what I watched/reviewed on Twitter (RLTerry1). So, if you’re not following me on Twitter, now would be a great time! Remember to use the hashtag #AllTheHorror  #31HorrorMoviesChallenge or #31HorrorFilms31Days when you post about your horror movies this month! Also be sure to follow AllTheHorror on Twitter!

Last year, I began with Nosferatu and followed the history of horror movies up through Scream; this year, I am picking up where I left off to continue my exploration of the history of the American horror film. You can find my ATH2018 article here that covers horror from its earliest days up through the mid 90s. This article will pick up in 1997 and go from there!

Movie 1 (10/01)

I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997). It’s been more than 20 years since I Know What You Did Last Summer convinced us to pay attention to the roadway at night or else risk the wrath of a meathook handed slasher, and this is consistently one of those 90s horror movies that is either loved or despised. Won’t find much middle ground here. Personally, this ranks highly for me when talking 90s horror. While this movie has not seen the legacy and timeless influence that Scream has, there is still a lot to like if you are a slasher fan or simply enjoy the excellent chemistry in our lead ensemble cast. For instance, we would not have Scary Movie if it wasn’t for I Know and Scream, we may not have the Hash Slinging Slasher from Spongebob Square Pants. Believe it or not, there is a hidden strength in the story that rarely gets talked about. It’s a great psycho-social commentary on perception as reality and the cognitive elopement of a young adult. Moreover, I Know’s real genius is in how it confronts each of the lead cast with questions that all of us ask ourselves, such as simply knowing who we can trust, fight or flight, and varying degree of self-centeredness. It functions very well as a study of every individual teen’s mental state. Just like the characters in the movie, we (the audience) are wondering exactly who can be trusted. Sure, if you think too much about the plot, it falls apart, but isn’t that the case with many slashers? Everything from the twists and turns, to the suspense, to the red herrings, a murderer screaming “you’ve got no place to hide,” not to mention the classic horror score, deliver a movie that is fun to watch, highly entertaining, and even rewatchable.

Movie 2 (10/02)

H20Halloween H20 (1998). Up until last year’s H40, the often maligned H20 was actually my favorite sequel in the Halloween series. Twenty years later, Laurie Strode (once again played by Jamie Lee Curtis) and her son (played Josh Hartnett) have moved clear across the country to southern California to be the head mistress of an exclusive boarding school where Michael finds her on–you guessed it–Halloween. Only Michael isn’t the only boogeyman haunting Laurie, she has turned to heavy drinking to cope with the trauma; this dependency on alcohol has become another monster in her life. Much like IKWYDLS borrowed from Scream, it is clear that the writers of H20 also reworked the Halloween movie for the Scream generation. If for no other reason, you watch this movie for Curtis’ performance as Laurie (a role she wouldn’t reprise again until H40). She gives it all she’s got! One of the things that I think this movie got right was how vulnerable, how human Laurie was. Often times, a legacy final girl might seem like she’s quasi superhuman, but not this one. She makes many mistakes and continues to allow fear and anxiety to all but consume her every moment. Horror movies are not always scary movies. Some horror movies are just fun, and this is a great example! Taking the kills to the next level, H20 had some of the most intense kills in the franchise up to that point. Many of which exceed the violence of the previous ones. When the opening scene has a kid (Joseph Gordon Levitt) with a hockey skate blade lodged in his head, you know that the bar has been set high! Here’s an item you may not have noticed in your past watches, but Curtis’ mom, the original scream queen, Janet Leigh appears with her daughter as the school secretary. Leigh is famous for being Marion Crane in Hitchcock’s Psycho. Yup, she’s the one in the famous shower scene. And get this, she also drives a similar (if not the same) car as she did in Psycho. Two legendary scream queens together on the screen, mother and daughter!

Movie 3 (10/03)

The Haunting (1999). With the critical success of Netflix’ The Haunting of Hill House last year, I thought that it would be fun to rewatch the movie that is also a remake of a 1963 horror film by the same name. With three iterations, you will certainly find the one you like most. Odds are, it’s not going to be this one, but to be fair, it’s not as bad as its reputations seems to be. Interestingly, the review from Roger Ebert praised this film on the basis of its locations, art direction, production design, and sound design, but it did not land as well with horror fans and general audiences. To be fair, the first half of the film is quite good! It’s atmospheric, tense, creepy, and haunting. Where the film loses the ability to keep you engaged is in the second half. Fortunately, all the elements that Ebert praised do hold the film together–albeit barely–when the screenwriter seems to have fallen asleep at the keyboard. Momentum should increase as we reach the showdown, but thanks to clunky dialogue and a lack of writing leanly, the pacing remains stagnant until the anti-climactic climax. What I appreciate about the first half of the film is the intriguing mystery about the history of Hill House and the Crane “family.” Had the film continued to build upon the successful suspense coupled with the puzzle solving and thought-provoking imagery and ideas, then it may have been stronger in the second half. With a powerhouse cast, excellent location, and big budget, there was such a potential to truly produce an old-school ghost story, but that would have required a writer whom cares from beginning to end.

Movie 4 (10/04)

The Faculty (1998). So this one is a little out of order because for some reason I thought it came out in 1999 or 2000, but Hartnett had a busy year of horror since this shares the same release year as Halloween H20The Faculty is an often forgotten gem in 90s/2000s horror discussions. One of my favorite components of the experience of watching this movie is just how much fun it is! Is it Sci-Fi? Is it horror? Perhaps it’s a hot mess of both, but this mashup of the two genres makes for an entertaining time with a great cast that has the perfect blend of chemistry. I love the original interpretation of this combination of Invasion of the Body SnatchersThe Thing, and even The Breakfast Club. Each of the aforementioned are tentpole films in their respective genre, but The Faculty weaves them together in an out-of-this-world entertaining horror movie. In addition to the A-list names amongst the students, it’s really the actors portraying the teachers that steel the show. And amongst those teachers is a name of horror royalty Piper Laurie! If you do not know, Piper Laurie played the role of Carrie’s mother in Brian de Palma’s Carrie.There are many moments in the film that have an almost self-referential quality to them. For instance, the lead cast seems to be familiar with the rules of horror movies and even play up the satirical side pretty well. There is an endearing quirky quality to this film as well, what with freeze framing and commentary on the characters and all. Again, this gets back to the reason to watch this movie: the fun factor. Since there isn’t much of a compelling story here and the ending is a little clunky, it’s important that a movie like this hooks you quickly and never lets you go for the duration of the run time. So, don’t worry about pacing, this film never lags.

Movie 5 (10/06)

Final Destination (2000). With volunteering at the iHorror Film Festival on Saturday, I had to watch movie 5 last night. So I will have to double up tonight haha. The movie I’ve selected for my fifth horror movie in my 31 day challenge is Final Destination. It quite the surprise for me, I had the pleasure of meeting screenwriter Jeffrey Reddick at the film festival on Saturday and got to talk to him a little about the movie! I am pleased to report that he is a very nice man whom is generous with his time. I appreciate him taking time out to speak with me at the festival. Some of you may know this, but I certainly didn’t, the screenplay for the movie was originally an episode for the X-Files! However, when feature potential was seen in it, it was then turned into the screenplay that would eventually become the quintessential early late 90s/early 2000s movie that would spawn many sequels and (the second one) forever cause us to avoid following logging trucks on the roadways. The original Final Destination took horror in a new direction that has often been copied and parodied but never successfully replicated with the same quality as the original and first sequel (which Reddick wrote the story for, but not the screenplay). This “dead teenager movie” is smart, witty, darkly funny, and sharp. Unlike many horror movies of this era, the dialogue is clever and never feels forced or gimmicky. Truth is, this is a character-driven horror movie that is punctuated with visceral horror, but the gore never takes center stage. The story is about the relationships, reactions, and patterns between all the characters. I also love how very much live a living Rube Goldberg machine this movie feels. The story is paced quite well, and includes dark comedy without ever venturing into parody or satire territory. The whole idea of “you can’t cheat death” has forever changed horror.

Movie 6 (10/07)

The Sixth Sense (1999). “I see dead people.” How many of us do not know that immortal line and the movie from which it came! It’s the movie that cemented M. Night Shyamalan as a powerhouse director (nevermind that many of his films have not lived up to the precedent set by The Sixth Sense). Believe it or not, this modern icon of the horror genre turns 20 this year. Not only did it serve as the breakout film for Shyamalan, but it was a smash hit at the box office. Much like the big reveal in Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express, the shockingly big twist in The Sixth Sense remains one of the worst kept secrets in the world of cinema, yet the film is still incredibly rewatchable. Although there are moments of sheer terror and horror in the movie, it is largely character-driven with fantastic dialogue exchanged between Cole (Haley Joel Osment) and Dr. Crowe (Bruce Willis). I just love how this film centers in and around the fantastical idea that we can control our own narrative even after death with the help of a clairvoyant whom seeks to help the dearly departed mend relationships, complete tasks left undone, and any other unfinished business. These actions allow the living and dead to rest in peace. Emotions run high in this film as audiences come face-to-face with tortured souls of the living and dead variety. Furthermore, this film seeks to provide psycho-social commentary on grief and that which we cannot possibly fully understand when exploring death. Even knowing the big twist, we are still captured by the tension of the scenes between Dr. Crowe and his wife. We know that he is dead, but we still empathize greatly with the inability of him and his wife to communicate. The strength of this movie is that it successfully taps into the dark corners of our psyche to explore that which we do not understand yet impacts our very lives every day.

Movie 7 (10/07)

What Lies Beneath (2000). Although most of my selections are clearly in the horror genre, every once in a while, there is a noteworthy horror adjacent movie that is worth covering for a challenge such as this one. Robert Zemeckis’ What Lies Beneath starring Harrison Ford and the incomparable Michelle Pfeiffer is truly a horror-adjacent gem! And it has Michelle Pfeiffer, how could I not include it?!? Clearly Zemeckis was going for a Hitchcockian thriller meets old fashioned haunted house movie, and it mostly pays off. Whereas this film may not have received highly positive reviews when it came out, today it is one that is often brought up when discussing underrated horror movies. Some of the Hitchcock-inspired tropes in this movie are the whole Rear Window scene, innocent people showing up to startle the central character, and mysterious characters showing up in a mirror. The biggest difference between what Zemeckis did and what Hitch would have done is that Zemeckis went the supernatural route and Hitch would have explained it through paranoia, trauma, schizophrenia, or some other psychological means. The strength of this film may not be in the writing as much as it is the excellent visual storytelling, that builds tension through the cinematography, and the exceptional casting choices. My favorite scene in this movie is the one immediately following Norman (a Hitch nod) paralyzing Clair with the experimental new drug that was foreshadowed earlier in the movie. As the water covers her face, and all we are left with is her eyes barely above the water, we can feel the sheer terror Clair is experiencing. Until the last minute, we are anxiously wondering if she will survive. Another notable sequence is when the camera lingers on the sideview mirror of the car as we see Norman’s body rise up in the house while we are aware that Clair is running for the truck. Perhaps this movie does not hold up as well as most of Hitchcock’s thrillers, but it is clearly inspired by Hitch and his ghost is felt throughout the story. While some find the supernatural element absurd, I don’t mind it because that is what helps this to be more horror-adjacent than it would otherwise.

Movie 8 (10/08)

American Psycho (2000). Not only a great horror film, but a great film period. The movie that was once protested by women was, in fact, directed by a woman. Directed by Mary Harron, American Psycho is a brilliant cinematic work that is just as relevant today as it was when it was originally released. At its heart, this film is a provocative artistic work that comments on materialism, narcissism, and the empty feeling that comes with them. Many, including yours truly, characterize the film as a dark comedy that forces us to reconcile our aspirations for wealth, power, and what happens when we fail to make genuine emotional connections with other individuals because we are completely consumed by image and status. Furthermore, there is a fascinating character study here on trying to fit into a society that you really don’t want to fit into, but don’t know what the other options are. Therefore you act on impulses instead of recognizing them to critically analyze if they indeed are the right things to do. One of the qualities of the experience of watching a horror film compared to other genres is the power it has to force us to face our fears, look in the mirror (pun intended), and question the world around us. Moreover, it allows us to explore hard-to-talk-about subjects because it approaches them in creative, visual ways. that force us to think about some societal observation in new ways. In many ways Patrick Bateman is us; the us we are when no one is looking. Perhaps most of us are not serial killers, but we certainly have a running commentary on the world around us. Also like Bateman, if we are not careful, we can fall prey to our own animalistic, self-centered instincts. I also love how this movie parallels the vicious nature of Wall Street with the murder sprees of Bateman. In this movie, it’s Wall Street, but it could very well be any number of work places. Perhaps there is little relatability to the characters on the surface, but dig a little deeper and this film is quite the microcosm of the world we live in.

Movie 9 (10/09)

Lake Placid (1999). Largely absent for more than a decade, the old fashioned creature feature returns. And it’s bigger, funnier, bloodier, and more romantic (?) than before! When you thought it couldn’t get any better, Betty White shows up! What more could you ask for in a throwback creature feature that is still so much fun to watch. Nevermind that it failed to impress the critics of the day, this movie was made to entertain, and entertain it certainly does. Often times, horror movies like this one do not improve with age; however, like a fine wine, this movie has developed more of an audience as it has aged. This is in part due to the solid direction by Steve Miner, the sharp screenplay by David E. Kelley, and the excellent cast. And at less than an hour and a half, this movie never wears out its welcome. The pacing is brisk, not a moment wasted, eery scene sets up the following scene and continuously points to the showdown. Still in the early years of CGI, Miner chose to pair the CGI of the day with animatronics. Good thing too, because this combination helps the film not to look terribly dated. Sure the CGI is rough around the edges, but since we are not staring at CGI the whole time, we are more willing to accept it. You know what else makes this film fun to watch? Betty White. Her feisty character is in stark contrast to the otherwise serene landscape, and you gotta love her obscene one-liners. She goes full Betty White in every scene. I truly appreciate this movie for how it told the story more than what the story is about. It successfully paired an old school subject with a post-modern approach that delivers a fresh horror movie to audiences.

Movie 10 (10/10)

The Others (2001). What a fantastic haunted house film with a twist ending! Although this formula has been copied in other movies, The Others still holds up very well. At the time it came out, most horror movies were slasher or supernatural schlock fests, but this one chose to go the more traditional route of building a foreboding atmosphere complete with unsettling characters. Tension is high throughout this entire movie until the twist ending is delivered in spades. Nicole Kidman shines as the central character who completely convinces us that she is a normal person whom is living in a bizarre mysterious world. This is a thinking man’s horror movie that would probably be much more successful at the box office today than it was when it came out because audiences are gravitating toward art house horror in numbers that haven’t been seen before. While this film has bene accused of plot that lacks direction (and to some extent, I have to agree with that assessment), the lack of focus is made up for by the expertly crafted ominous mood and haunting ambiance. Capturing the atmosphere is the excellent cinematography and candlelit lighting. Often overlooked in horror movies is costuming, and Kidman’s Grace has some absolutely gorgeous attire–simple in design–but does not go unnoticed. The strength of this film, outside of the production design, is the relationship and conflict between Grace and her kids as well as the new servants. It had been a long time since I watched this movie, but I am pleased to report that it still holds up well on a rewatch. If you are searching for an atmospheric horror film to watch one evening, then this is still a good one to select.

Movie 11 (10/11)

Jason X (2001). This is one hot mess of a Jason movie, but it is so much fun to watch! What happens when you combine Alien with Friday the 13thJason X. Of all the creative deaths in the Friday the 13th franchise, this one has my personal favorite: the liquid nitrogen kill! You know the one I’m talking about. Although this series lacks the quality of writing in the Halloween and Elm Street, there is a beauty in the simplicity of Jason Voorhees as a Freudian superego that goes around punishing horny teenagers for their sexual promiscuity. One of the more hilarious aspects to this movie is just how little fashion and culture has changed from the early 21st century to the 25th century. Whereas fashion may not have changed much, technology certainly has. Straight out of Star Trek TNG is a holodeck that recreates Camp Crystal Lake to distract Jason. In this scene, we also get a simple kill that works so well. Never enclose yourself in a sleeping bag. One of the biggest differences between this installment and the previous Jason movies is that this group knows who Jason is. And believe it or not, we do end up caring about these characters a little more than usual. In the end, it takes itself a little too seriously to be truly satirical, but it’s also too silly to be taken seriously by longtime fans of the franchise. If you’re looking for something fun to watch on a lazy afternoon, then this movie works well.

Movie 12 (10/13)

Ghost Ship (2002). What a shocking opening! Although the opening to Scream may still be the best opening in a horror movie ever, the opening to Ghost Ship is right up there with it. Talk about a razor sharp opening that truly hooks the audience in for the ride and tells them precisely what kind of movie this is going to be. Alien is a haunted house movie (that meets Jaws) in space and Ghost Ship is a haunted house movie set on an ocean liner right out of the 1960s. Perhaps this movie suffers from terrible characters and a vapid plot; however, what it lacks in those areas it more than makes up for in atmosphere. Truly, this movie boasts some of the best atmospheric shots, art direction, and production design that 2000s horror has to offer. There is almost a Titanic like feeling when moving throughout the ship, and it’s even creepier because we know precisely how all the passengers died. The theme of greed versus prudence is woven throughout the plot. Witnessed in how and why  characters meet the demise that they do, this theme is integrated well into the plot, and helps to setup the big twist at the end of the movie. From a technical perspective, the movie got a lot of things right. One might say that it’s among the best to come out of the early 2000s, but still not as good as you hoped it would be, considering the brilliant opening and setup. I guarantee that you will never look at a tension wire in the same way again.

Movie 13 (10/13)

Signs (2002). The alien movie that really isn’t about aliens at all. Despite the crop circles on the poster and the catalyst of aliens on earth, the movie isn’t about that at all. And that’s why it works so incredibly well! Signs by M. Night Shyamalan is a brilliant motion picture that possesses the power to create tension out of seemingly nowhere and keep driving that tension up until the strategic time that the punch is to be delivered. What Shyamalan achieved in this film was the ability to evoke strong fear, anxiety, and other emotions through the use of the camera. Suspense with a camera as Hitchcock whisperer Jeffrey Michael Bays would put it. There is a power in the direction, acting, cinematography, and score in this film that sets up audiences to fear that which is not even seen. Sometimes we find ourselves looking and listening to something that isn’t even there, but that’s the beauty of this film. Shyamalan uses strategically places moments of silence much in the same way that Hitchcock would do in his films. Speaking of whom, there is no score in The Birds. Whereas the technique of using TV or radio broadcasts to deliver exposition can come across as lazy or forced, because the programs still leave room for subtext, they work very well in this film. So, if this film isn’t about aliens, what kind of film is it? It’s a character study on the stages of grief and redemption. The plot is incredibly simple, yet our characters highly complex. That’s why this film works so incredibly well!

Movie 14 (10/14)

Cabin Fever (2002). The directorial debut from Eli Roth! This gory horror movie may look like Evil Dead but it does not go the supernatural route. Instead this movie features a flesh-eating bacterial disease. So often when we are in a cabin in the woods, we encounter a demon or maniac, but I like how this body horror movie uses something incredibly realistic (albeit exaggerated). For fans of Boy Meets World, you’ll recognize Rider Strong as our central character. For all the gore that is in this movie, it’s not the focus. Co-written by Roth, this movie never loses focus on the relationships between the characters. I love how we witness the complete deterioration of friendships because of paranoia, fear, and self-preservation. The tension in this movie is real! You can cut it with a butter knife.

Movie 15 (10/15)

House of a 1000 Corpses (2003). After experiencing the house at HHN29, I just had to add it to my 31 Horror Movies Challenge this month. Ordinarily, I am not a fan of Rob Zombie’s movies, but this one has such a great cast including the late Sid Haig. Hillbilly horror meets teen slasher in this movie. It’s a nostalgic tribute to Texas Chainsaw Massacre that doesn’t have much else going on in its plot. The strength in this movie is in the character actors. Due to Zombie’s penchant for shooting on film stock, this movie has a sort of homespun morbid charm that certainly helps in the viewing experience of this pretty much torture porn movie. Something else that I appreciate about this movie is that you can you see the hand of the artist in eery scene. Much in the same way Zombie writes and performs his music, this movie is also raw, graphic, loud, and violent. Perhaps his music is not to my personal liking, but there is no denying that his signature brand of entertainment is all over this movie. Whereas the plot may be greatly lacking, the movie makes up for that with a rather brilliant production design and art direction. This is probably why it was such a successful translation from movie to house at HHN this year.

Movie 16 (10/18)

This next film represents the last time the legend that is Robert Englund haunted our nightmares as Freddy Krueger until The Goldbergs Halloween special last year. Freddy vs. Jason (2003) is an incredibly fun movie starring two of our favorite slashers that helped define the genre. Fans got to experience the movie at Universal Orlando’s Halloween Horror Nights 25 in 2015; and what Universal did that was extra fun and heightened the suspense was randomly changing who won! Sometimes it was Jason and other times it was Freddy. Nearly 20 years since Freddy first started haunting the nightmares of the children of the Elm Street parents that burned him alive and more than 20 years since Jason started terrorizing camp counselors to avenge his mother’s death, this movie explores what happens when the teens of Elm Street are no longer afraid of Freddy because a new drug prohibits dreaming while allowing for restful sleep. Without dreams, Freddy is without his main source of power. Furthermore, the inability to enter dreams means that he is all but a distant memory for Elm Street. After a chance encounter with Jason in Hell, Freddy concocts a devious plan. Under the impression that he can control the iconic hockey masked killer, he sends Jason back to Elm Street to make the teens scared of him again. Instilling this fear in them will make Freddy Stronger. Unfortunately, for Freddy, things quickly get out of his control and the two icons of horror rack up quite the body count before turning on one another. The final battle between Freddy and Jason is one of the best battle sequences in horror! New Line Platinum pulls out all the stops in this epic final battle between two characters that helped define a genre and decade of cinema.

Movie 17 (10/18)

Saw (2004). Every decade there seems to come a film that will define the state of the genre and serve as a touchstone that pioneers new ways of tapping into our fears and commenting on what we are facing as a society. Often times, this same movie will create a new subgenre of horror that inspires other movies and even spawn sequels. Until A24 started bringing us art house horror films in the last few years, two films broke new ground for horror: Saw and Paranormal Activity. While neither of these films, and the countless sequels and quasi brain children of them, are to my liking, there is no doubt that they were the most influential over the last 10-15 years. That being said, I do appreciate the original Saw for its minimalistic production design and  innovative storytelling; but I don’t like the barrage of torture porn movies that came after it. Saw works because it has a compelling story and the focus is NOT on the gruesome violence; however, many of the movies that it inspired shifted the focus from the narrative to the torturous kills. Still, there are interesting aspects to consider from this series and ones it inspired like Hostile. For instance, as repulsive as Hostile is, there is a thought-provoking exploration of the mediation (as in media) of society and what happens when people are reduced to commodities.

Movie 18 (10/19)

The Descent (2005). Often cited as one of the scariest horror movies over the last 20 years and one that was a critical success–including high praise from Roger Ebert–is The Descent. While it was not released in the US until summer 2006, it was released in the UK in 2005. Not only does this brilliant horror film have the thrills, violence, and fear-inducing moments, it delivers a well-developed plot with excellently crafted characters and outstanding direction. Not to mention the production design, score, editing, cinematography and everything involved in taking the fantastic story from page to screen. This atmospheric horror film completely immerses you in the depths of the descent into the bowels of the cavernous underground. Talk about an effective title! One particularly notable element in this film is the all female cast. Strong female characters are no stranger to horror–in fact–horror long liberated women from being damsels in distress before mainstream movies and media. Ever heard of the final girl? Thought so. Many of the scene in the movie take place in near-darkness, but the director never leaves the audience feeling completely lost. Sometimes the audience may be bewildered or anxious about the direction, but that’s the point! This film engages the minds and bodies of the audience in such a way that the audience can feel the claustrophobia and fear of the characters.

Movie 19 (10/22)

The Hills Have Eyes (2006). Before Alexander Aja would give us campy horror hits like Piranha 3D and the critically acclaimed Crawl (2019), he thrilled audiences with his revisitation of The Hills Have Eyes, originally written and directed by Wes Craven. Although many, including yours truly, will argue that the original is superior, Aja stays true to his source material. On the surface, this movie is about a family encountering a cannibalistic group of isolated desert hill billies, but beneath the surface beats the heart of a movie that comments on isolation, nuclear fallout, and yes even family and neighborhoods. Unfortunately, the larger budget did not pave the way for anything innovative or substantive, unless you’re talking substantial buckets of blood. There was such an opportunity for Aja to go by way of John Carpenter’s The Thing in his remake of Craven’s original, but instead it plays off as derivative and schlocky. Where the movie does work, is when Aja is in his world of campy gore.

Movie 20 (10/22)

Trick ‘R Treat (2007). I don’t know about you, but this movie is one that I have to watch each Halloween! This year, I am watching it earlier than usual, but its been part of my Halloween since I was introduced to it by a friend. Michael Dougherty delivers a brilliantly innovative anthology movie with several smaller stories all woven into one giant narrative commenting on the power of tradition. In this case, the traditions surrounding Halloween! Fans of the movie were able to experience it at Halloween Horror Nights 27 as a scare zone and HHN 28 as a house. Personally, I preferred the scare zone to the house. Trick ‘r Treat is full of fantastic scares, entertaining characters, and an engaging plot. While few writer-directors could handle a nonlinear film as their directorial debut with such precision, Dougherty does precisely that! And what is the result? Instant cult classic. Couldn’t ask for a better start to your career. I love everything about this film: the costumes, set design, lighting, cinematography, the editing and more! Truthfully, it reminds me of something that Tim Burton would have done in the hayday of his career in the 80s and 90s. The costume designs are absolutely out of this world! I love how unnervingly exaggerated many of them are. And the atmosphere crafted by Dougherty is the perfect place for all these characters to interact with each other and their surroundings. Forming the solid foundation upon which this story was visually executed is the solid screenplay written by Dougherty. While there was such a risk of s story such as this one going by way of the camp route, never once did anything feel cheesy. In fact, there are homages paid to past horror movie staples that horror fans will enjoy. During a decade that seemed to be frocked with uber gory, violent, torture, blood fests, this film is a refreshing look at the strength of original storytelling where the focus is on the characters, conflict, and relationships, not simply guys and gore that seek to torment the viewer. There is something for everyone in this film, and it’s relatively appropriate for a wide age group. Maybe it’s not a conventional horror movie, but it’s certainly a brilliant Halloween film!

Ryan teaches screenwriting at the University of Tampa. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! You can catch Ryan most weeks at Studio Movie Grill Tampa, so if you’re in the area, he’d love to plan to see a movie with you. Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter or email him at RLTerry1@gmail.com!

Follow him!

Twitter: RLTerry1

Instagram: RL_Terry

“Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark” horror movie review

Everyone loves a good ghost story, and Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark has several ones that remind me of Nickelodeon’s Are You Afraid of the Dark? on steroids! Don’t let the August release date fool you, this is a surpassingly frightening horror movie! It takes the very practice of passing along scary stories generation to generation, and explores the far reaching effects that the power of story has in a manner that it as insightful as it is visually terrifying. Directed by Andre Ovredal with a superlative screenwriting and story team including Guillermo del Toro, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark relies upon a more classical approach to a horror movie by building upon old fashioned ghost stories. You know, the kind that you sit around the camp fire or on the floor of your childhood sleepover and tell one another. These are stories that have been shared and passed down so prolifically that they feel alive. Ghost stories are such a part of our childhood and teenage years, and this film explores the idea of these stories coming to life. A terrifying prospect. Despite the one-dimensional characters, this movie keeps the audience engaged because of the incredibly fun plot and nightmarish visuals. And no, the end of the movie is not tied up with a nice little bow. Traditional narratives follow: order–>disorder–>order again, but horror often takes on an order–>disorder–>order–>disorder path. While there are elements in this movie that may predispose you to thinking that it’s an anthology like Michael Dougherty’s Trick ‘r Treat, it is one linear narrative. Scary Stories is  thoughtful horror movie that is a throwback to the tales of old, when hauntingly spooky was more important than grisly gore.

Pennsylvania 1968 on Halloween, and change is blowing in the wind…but seemingly far removed from the unrest in the cities is the small town of Mill Valley, where for generations, the shadow of the Bellows family has loomed large. It is in their mansion, on the edge of town, that Sarah, a young girl with horrible secrets, turned her tortured life into a series of scary stories she passed along to children whom would talk to her through the wall of her foreboding mansion. In addition to passing down the stories orally, she wrote them down in book that truly immerses the reader into the terrifying plot. When a group of teenagers accidentally stumbles onto Sarah’s book of scary stories to tell in the dark, they realize that these stories are become all too real, and they find themselves strapped in the pages of these stories that transcend time and reality.

On one hand, this movie may appear overly generic to the casual observer, given the chief elements that make up the story. You have a group of misfit teens in small town middle America, lots of period nostalgia (that is thankfully not even more of the already proliferated 80s), a cursed object that torments its readers, and a haunted house. Everything that a writer needs to create a forgettable horror movie that goes directly to streaming services is here. But that is where you would be wrong to presume it is just another generic haunted house movie. The premise may not be exuding originality but the expression of the premise is. Combine the original expression of a plot template with the stunning visuals that we’ve come to expect from the del Toro brand, and you have one fantastic horror movie. Clearly exhibited in each and every scene, there are many signs that this movie was built by writers and a director who cares about the story and the audience experience. The degree to which this haunted house movie works for audiences may one day be seen in Universal’s Halloween Horror Nights. So many visual elements in this movie lend it to a haunted house (definitely more than the upcoming Us haunted house). Even if you did not grow up reading the Scary Stories books, you probably read Goosebumps or watch the TV version of the former or Are You Afraid of the Dark? and that is all you need to know or be familiar with. Go in with a love of good old-fashioned ghost stories, and you will have a fun time.

This is the second gateway horror movie that we have seen in the last couple years. Last year, we had The House with a Clock in its Walls, which worked as a gateway horror movie (albeit less so than this one). Ever since the TV shows referenced earlier went off the air, there has been a need for PG and PG-13 horror for younger audiences that also appeals to adults. Most of the horror movies over the last couple of decades have large been aimed at older teens and adults. The trick is to write a story that is appropriate enough for general 12-17 viewers, but still contain the macabre elements that 18+ viewers want to see. And that doesn’t mean gore, it means a thoughtful approach to crafting a fun horror movie that genuinely frightens you. Spooky atmospheres, ghostly apparitions, and tormented characters have been a staple of the American horror film from the days of Nosferatu and The Phantom of the Opera. But in recent years, haunting production design and memorable monsters have taken backseat to schlock fests. This movie seeks to bring back the old fashioned haunted house ghost movie to foster an appetite in young audiences for the fantastic world of horror.

The central character and our character of opposition are two opposite sides of the same coin. Driving their decisions is a love of storytelling and family issues. Of course the familial issues differ greatly, but they complement one another nicely. When developing central and opposition characters, it’s important for the screenwriter to remember that often both characters need to share some common traits, and even common goals, but the difference is in how that desire to achieve the goal is expressed through action. There appears to be ab attempts by the movie to provide opportunities for the characters and plot to comment on the society and politics, but it’s never fully developed. Underscoring many of the scenes in the film is the 1968 presidential election and the controversial Vietnam War. I feel that the socio=political elements were not used as effectively as they could have been, so it would have been better just to leave them out as those moments don’t add anything to the overall story.

The power of story. It was Cecil B. DeMille who stated that the “greatest art in the world is the art of storytelling,” and Scary Stories takes its cue from the timeless words from a  Hollywood great. Films were always about breaking ground in visual technical marvel, the almost oxymoronic photorealistic animation, or grisly violence; they were about telling stories. Not unlike the ones that got orally passed down. And these stories helped to shape generations of current and future storytellers. When you tell a story enough, it begins to have a life of its own, there is a place for some evil to be contained as we creatively explore the human condition, sexuality, gender roles, faith, psychology, and sociology through the American horror film. We already have a movie about what happens when the stories die (see my article on Wes Craven’s New Nightmare), so this one takes the approach of what happens when you steel someone’s storybook but pairs that with the healing power of storytelling. To get into how and why would reveal too much about the showdown of the movie, and I don’t want to spoil it for you. At the end of the movie, you are left with wondering about the stories that you have passed down, and power to terrify or to heal that comes along with them. You may even find yourself wanting to get a group of friends together to tell ghost stories.

If you love a good ghost story, then you definitely want to catch this while in theatres to truly appreciate and experience the nightmarish visuals of the monsters and the beauty of the production design. Get into the Halloween spirit a little early with Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark as you enjoy a throwback to a more classical approach to the American horror film.

You can catch Ryan most weeks at Studio Movie Grill Tampa, so if you’re in the area, let him know and you can join him at the cinema.

Ryan teaches screenwriting at the University of Tampa and teaches high school TV/Film production. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter!

Follow him!

Twitter: RLTerry1

Instagram: RL_Terry

Sinister Summer: “The Birds” Retrospective Review

“You’ll never look at birds the same way again” (Jurassic Park). Although Dr. Grant was referring to velociraptors, you can say the very same thing about Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds. Hitchcock directed more than fifty feature length films, only two of which are horror (Psycho and The Birds). However, he is widely credited, and rightly so, as the director who ushered in the modern horror film, with Psycho being regarded as the first modern horror film. On the heels of the success of Psycho, a film that revolutionized so much about the movie-going experience from movie start times to “not spoiling the ending” (now where have we recently heard that???), Hitch set out to deliver another horror film at the height of his powers. But what would it be about? He turned to past collaborator Daphne du Maurier, author of Rebecca, Hitch’s first American film. Her best-selling novella The Birds had previously been adapted for radio and stage (I’ve actually seen the stage adaptation, and incidentally I prefer the film), but Hitch decided to adapt it (loosely I might add) for the small screen. That’s right, small screen. He originally intended The Birds to be adapted for his wildly popular and successful series Alfred Hitchcock Presents. But like Jordan Peele did with Us, which I am convinced started out as an idea for his Twilight Zone series, Hitch decided to take the idea from TV to the cinema! So with the decision to adapt du Maurier’s novella into a cinematic experience, Hitch made history. Not only is it one of the most famous films in cinematic history, it sowed the birdseed for all the “when nature attacks” movies to follow including Jaws and Jurassic Park. This film was also influential in John Carpenter’s The Fog and Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining. With the question of why did the birds attack never being answered, it leaves the events of this movie lingering in our minds as a possible reality.

To hear a conversation with me on the CineMust podcast chatting about the must-see status of The Birds and Jaws, click HERE.

When wealthy well-known socialite Melanie Daniels (Hedron) finds herself to be the brunt of a practical joke played by lawyer Mitch Brenner (Taylor) at a bird shop while searching for a gift, she decides to return the favor by buying a couple of birds and dropping them off at his apartment. Upon finding that he spends the weekends with his younger sister and mother (Jessica Tandy) north of San Francisco in the small community of Bodega Bay, she drives to the remote town in order to deliver the birds. Soon after her unannounced arrival, the birds of the town begin to act incredibly strangely. Following a seagull attacking Melanie, and Mitch’s mother discovering her neighbor dead from an apparent bird attack, the town realizes that the birds are a real threat. Eventually birds, in the thousands are attacking anyone without reason or explanation as to why this is happening. Trapped in the Brenner household, survival becomes the number one priority for not only our central characters but everyone in the town.

At the heart of The Birds is relationships. Relationships ranging from romantic to familial and then between an outsider and the natives of a close knit town. Paranoia is a common theme in this film as well. The characters and their relationships between one another are so incredibly strong and well–developed that you can ostensibly remove the birds from the equation and the movie still works. Now, it doesn’t work as a horror film, but it works as a drama. The strength of this screenplay, written by Evan Hunter, lies in the complex characters and simple plot. Although the plot is largely changed from du Maurier’s novella, the setting, character dynamics, and the idea of the home invasion are extrapolated from the source material. Outside of the terrifying element of the attacking birds, the film’s subplot is about an outsider invading a close knit community and a de facto love quadrangle between Mitch, his mother, his sister, and his ex. Essentially, Melanie upsets the normal order of the town much in the same way that the birds upset the pecking order of humans vs nature. The screenplay also delivers some outstanding tonal shifts that are seamlessly woven together. Way before the first bird attacks, The Birds begins as a screwball comedy right out of the 1930s, then changes into a soap opera, then suspense, followed by horror. Lastly, the movie takes one final tonal shift from horror to apocalyptic, complete with dead bodies, foreboding birds, and a lack of resolution. This movie has legitimately inspired the real fear of birds (ornithophobia) in how the scenes were shot and the lingering possibility that this could happen in your own town.

There is a brilliant lack of explanation of why the birds are attacking not is there any real means of escape for the townsfolk of Bodega Bay, all while chaos reigns supreme in this otherwise innocent seaside landscape. Yet, this cinematic work is a permanent resident of our sociological zeitgeist. Even those who have not seen the film are aware of its existence. And it has gone from screen to live experience at the former Universal Studios Florida attraction Alfred Hitchcock: the Art of Making Movies. The reason why we don’t focus on the lack of an explanation for the birds bizarre and violent behavior is for the same reason that we don’t ask why Bruce (Jaws) is attacking people. We accept it because the film is more concerned with its theme than points of origin expositional dumps. We don’t care about why the birds are doing what they are doing–that’s part of the horror. It’s the same reason why it’s important that we don’t know too much about Michael Myers; if we knew too much about him, why he ticks, then he would cease to be the boogeyman. These birds would cease to be terrifying if there was some sort of natural or supernatural explanation. The unknown is frightening. There have been many hypotheses over the years as to what the birds represent. The most popular one is rooted in the red scare or communism. And perhaps that is true, but the real villain (character of opposition) is not the birds but the townsfolk of Bodega Bay. The birds are the personification of the mistreatment of and unwelcoming attitudes of the residents toward Melanie. In a similar fashion, the villain of Jaws is the mayor because he is the personification of the folly of man.

When the true oppositional character in a screenplay is an entity, force, or idea, that component has to be personified in a character(s) because film is a visual storytelling medium, so the outdated, nationalistic attitudes of the locals is personified in the birds. Moreover, the ornithologist in the diner stated that if birds of different species flocked together, then all hope would be lost for humanity as we couldn’t stand a chance against them. That foreboding prediction came to pass as both crows and seagulls (who do not mix together in real life) massed together and terrorized the town and its people. As the birds are the original inhabitants of Bodega Bay, the humans represent the outsiders. This symbolism is also witnessed in how the townsfolk banned together to force Melanie out of the town and in how Mitch’s mother urges him to send Melanie back to San Francisco. All through the movie, there are images and sequences of the way outsiders can be marginalized by the majority of the native inhabitants. Human civilization has long sense been guilty of stigmatizing or marginalizing outsiders. At the root of the symptoms of intolerance is fear. So, Hitchcock took that root cause of unwelcoming attitudes and mistreatment and adapted it into a timeless horror film. It holds up so well because fear is still evident in how certain groups of people treat another in our lives today. Hitchcock used a combination of blue screen and practical effect technologies to bring the terror to life. And of those two approaches, it’s mostly practical-effect driven, all the way down to the real birds that were used during the production (with proper bird trainers/wranglers).

Three scenes that I want to highlight are the birthday party, downtown attack scene, and the upstairs room at the showdown. Nowadays, these scenes would be full of CGI and other post-production work. The actors would be acting with no birds on set, or very few anyway. For authenticity, puppets, mechanical, and real birds were used for these scenes to increase the realness and give the actors something to truly be afraid of. In fact, so many real birds were used that there were multiple large bird enclosures on the set that used as the temporary home of the stars of the film. In addition to bird wranglers, the American Humane Society was on set every day to monitor the treatment of the birds. The birthday party scene was composed of rotoscoping birds, blue screen shots of birds, papier-mache birds, and birds that were tied to actors and even more birds that were freely flying within the enclosure built around the set. Although most of the birds remained in the aviary, a few got out. And to this day, there are decedents of those birds living in the rafters of that sound stage on the Universal lot. In much the same way, the students fleeing the schoolhouse and down the hill to the town center–that scene–was accomplished in very much the same way. However, with this one, the added pyrotechnics were incorporated. The iconic phonebooth was covered in birdseed and shrimp to get the birds to go completely crazy. The upstairs bedroom scene at the end of the movie was completely constructed inside a giant aviary with hundreds of birds. In addition to the birdseed and shrimp that was strewn about the room, real birds were thrown at Hedron. The terror in her eyes that you see in the scene is all too real. No amount of acting can replicate that authentic fear. Despite the very real attack of the birds, Hedron is eternally grateful to have been a part of cinematic history.

The single scene that find is the most fascinating and shows the power of Hitchcock’s innate ability to create suspense with a camera is the scene immediately preceding the schoolhouse evacuation–the scene with Melanie sitting on the park bench with the jungle gym int he background.

You can catch Ryan most weeks at Studio Movie Grill Tampa, so if you’re in the area, let him know and you can join him at the cinema.

Ryan teaches screenwriting at the University of Tampa. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter!

Follow him!

Twitter: RLTerry1

Instagram: RL_Terry

“Us” full horror film review

The high speed hype train begins to slow down. Returning to horror once again, Writer-Director Jordan Peele’s Us hits theatres nationwide this weekend. The highly anticipated followup to the horror masterpiece Get Out ultimately falls short of the bar set by its predecessor. But don’t worry, there is still plenty to like about this intense film. Whereas Get Out was a horror film built upon compelling, thoughtful social-commentary on the uncredited, forced appropriation of one ethnic group by another, Us plays as a straight forward horror film, complete with all the thrills for which you hope to experience. There is certainly an attempt by Peele to comment on class, MAGA, and other important social topics, but the film tries to do too much, and winds up not accomplishing what it so desperately wants to do. Keep your eyes peeled for details, because you are going to need them in order to best appreciate the ending. With Peele’s revival of The Twilight Zone, it is clear that his adoration of that series (which is regarded as the best written series of all time by the WGA) played a roll in the development of Us. Specifically, this movie feels inspired by the After Hours and Mirror Image episodes. Peele delivers audiences an incredibly fun horror movie that is certain to do well over its run in the cinemas. Many of the film’s elements work exceptionally well; but unfortunately, the film is held back from its full potential by weak writing and average directing. Even though Peele’s Get Out, in my opinion, is the superior film, there is still a lot to enjoy in Us. I’ve no doubt that if you’re a horror fan, that you will have a great time! Let Us cut deeper into this film.

IMDb summary. Accompanied by her husband, son and daughter, Adelaide Wilson returns to the beachfront home where she grew up as a child. Haunted by a traumatic experience from the past, Adelaide grows increasingly concerned that something bad is going to happen. Her worst fears soon become a reality when four  strangers descend upon the house, forcing the Wilsons into a fight for survival. The family is horrified to learn that each attacker takes the appearance of one of them,

My biggest takeaway from this movie is that I am convinced more than ever than Jordan Peele should be able to pull off a successful, meaningful revival of The Twilight Zone. The problem with the writing and directing in Us is that it tried to do too much. In an effort to create a deep, rich, cinematic experience that was both horrifying and thought-provoking, the plot is all over the place. Even to the point that it contradicts itself. It’s as if the idea for this movie began as one of the episodes of the upcoming Twilight Zone revival but Peele decided that he wanted to turn it into a feature length movie. Evidence of this can be found in the similarities it shares with the aforementioned After Hours and Mirror Image episode. There are enough differences that it is clearly not an adaptation of the episode, but I can see how it inspired this movie. Further evidence can be witnessed in that it’s produced, written, and directed by Peele. When a storyteller wears that many hats, there is little room for checks and balances. Us feels like a feature length horror movie that would’ve been better off as a half hour or hour long installment in an anthology series. Starting off moderately strong, then very strong in the second act, the third act feels like it was from another movie idea altogether and forced to fit into this one. Too many ideas. All good individually, but convolute the plot when mashed together. The plot is too complex. What Us tries to do is ultimately too vast for what this movie is capable of delivering to audiences.

Without getting into spoilers, I’d like to visit why the plot doesn’t work as well as it demonstrably shows it had the potential to have worked. We are clearly explained a particular relationship as having a one-way transference; however, there is a plot twist that completely contradicts this relationship. A best practice of screenwriting is to not introduce significantly new material, in the third act, that directly affects the present plot, which was not foreshadowed or setup in the previous two acts; this movie introduces lots of new plot elements in the third act that further complicate versus tying up. For most of the movie, the plot lives in a believable reality, but then it takes a turn that takes it from something terrifyingly possible to nearly unbelievable. And the power of a movie such as this is that it feels possible within the world that’s created on screen. If the characters are making a statement, they run out of people to receive that statement through the course of events. Perhaps if there was a greater supernatural element in the screenplay that it would have worked much better, because the supernatural could have explained how and why much better than the science-fiction approach. What is lacking here is a singular vision.

Now that I have gotten all the things that I didn’t care for out of the way, I want to finish this article with what works brilliantly! The performances are outstanding, the score is excellent, and even the cinematography is noteworthy. Of all the stellar performances, Lupita’s is the one that stood out to me the most. As an Oscar winner, I expect her to deliver an impeccable performance, and she does precisely that! I felt what she was feeling, I empathized with her greatly, and she held my attention for the duration of the movie. I’m careful not to project an Oscar nom out of this because I thought Toni Collette’s performance in Hereditary was Oscar and Golden Globe worthy, and we all know what happened with that. Love this score! The classic orchestral approach fit this movie exceptionally well. The score worked so well that it almost felt like a character in and of itself. A well-composed score should be a diegetic extension of the story, the emotional beats, and action; and this one is all those things! Cinematography should never be overlooked as greatly contributing to how a story is being told. It is the element that places us in objective or subjective points of view or prompts us to interpret a scene in a particular way. There are some beautiful shots in this movie that are framed with precision. All throughout the movie, the cinematography plays a strong role in crafting the full experience of Us.

Regardless if you like or love this movie, you are definitely in for a fun time! Perhaps I have issues with the writing and directing (two important elements in the crafting of a movie) but I still enjoyed myself and am confident that you will too. I don’t think it will become a classic in the way that Get Out will be one day, but it’s one to watch anyhow. Lots of great concepts here, but Peele doesn’t strongly deliver any one of them.

You can join Ryan at the cinema most weeks at Studio Movie Grill Tampa.

Ryan teaches screenwriting at the University of Tampa. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter!

Follow him!

Twitter: RLTerry1

Instagram: RL_Terry

All the Horror: Women in Horror Month

All the Horror Presents Women in Horror Month! During the month of February, a group of mostly podcasters plus yours truly are highlighting many leading women and final girls of horror films! Visit the Promote Horror website for all the podcasts and written articles from the participants in this limited time engagement. Each week starting on February 4th, I will provide you with a character analysis of some of my favorite women in horror films, and hopefully some of yours too! For the sake of simplicity, I will add each article to this blog entry. Enjoy!

  1. Clarice Starling (Feb 4)
  2. Ellen Ripley (Feb 11)
  3. Nancy Thompson (Feb 18)
  4. Annie Wilkes (Feb 25)

Clarice Starling

When I think of strong female characters in horror, one name instantly jumps to the front of my mind, Clarice Starling (played by Jodie Foster) in The Silence of the Lambs. Not only is she, in my opinion, the single most important female character in all horror, she is one of the most influential and important female characters in all of cinema! Perhaps there is no greater example of a dynamic, unassailable female central character in a horror film. Not only is the character one to be revered and admired, but Foster won the Academy Award for Actress in a Leading Role for her portrayal of Clarice. Incidentally, The Silence of the Lambs is only one of three films to win the Big 5 Academy Awards (Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Screenplay). But we are here to analyze the character of Clarice.

Even before we learn anything about Clarice’s wit and intellectual prowess, we witness her hard-working nature on the obstacle course in Quantico, VA, well-known for being the home of the FBI training academy; her status as an FBI academy student is solidified by her shirt. Furthermore, we observe her holding her own in a field dominated by men. This opening sequence of shots is important to visually convey Clarice’s raw determination to achieve what she wants. We don’t have to know the particular area of the FBI in which she wants to specialize, all we need to know is that she will stop at nothing to realize her aspirations. Even when she dies in a simulation, she does not excuse her lack of response, but she states why she died in a purely objective way. We learn later on in the film, that Clarice is haunted by a childhood trauma of a combination of her father dying during a burglary and the slaughter of lambs at her uncle’s ranch. She is driven by her desire to protect and free the innocent from dangerous humans in the world. Hence why she pursues a career as a special agent in the FBI. Her career aspirations are a means for her to overcome the emotional chaos of her childhood by stopping at nothing to land her position in the Behavioral Sciences division of the FBI under Jack Crawford.

One clear motif throughout these opening scenes is this idea of a woman in a man’s world; moreover, it’s the depiction of female agency. Although not one of the most memorable quotes from the film, Clarice’s line “If he [Buffalo Bill] sees her as a person and not just an object, it’s harder to tear her up” this is the line that highlights this often overlooked theme central to the plot of the film. Moreover, there is recurring imagery of the male gaze and the defiance thereof from colleagues, superiors, officer counterparts, and Dr. Lecter. Entire articles have been written on cinema and the male gaze, and I don’t have time to go into all the details in this character analysis of Clarice; but for the majority of its existence, cinema has reflected heterosexual male dominance–objectifying women–whether its overt through action or subtle through subtext. However, The Silence of the Lambs combats this practice by subverting the voyeuristic male gaze by forcing the audience to see Clarice (and all women in the film, by extension) as unique individuals and not objects.

One of the most admirable aspects of Clarice is her well-rounded nature as a character. She shows signs of strength, vulnerability, innocence, determination, independence, and a willingness to learn. By way of the manner in which Director Jonathan Demme chose to have the male characters, friend or foe, look directly into the camera lens when addressing Clarice and Clarice looking just off camera when responding predisposed us to identifying with Clarice’s character–we place ourself in her shoes. As the male characters look into the camera addressing Clarice, we feel that they are gazing at and addressing us. But my Clarice looking away from the camera lens, she visually subverts the male gaze as she becomes the one with the power in the scene. Great way to visually communicate this theme to the audience. But it’s more than just communicating a theme, this action gives Clarice power often attributed to male characters therefore increasing her level of dominance.

Clarice is everything that we want in a horror or thriller protagonist. And the beauty of this film is that it is both a horror and suspense thriller. And she works as an admirable, brave, and authentically human for both. More than a strong protagonist, she is a feminine icon who needs no qualifiers. Simply stated, she broke the mold of what was expected of female protagonists in general, and specifically horror. All the while she is working diligently at tracking down Buffalo Bill and learning how to best work with Dr. Lecter, she faces both overt and subtle discrimination but does not flinch a muscle. It’s her sheer chutzpah, authenticity, and respect for Dr. Lecter that endears her to him. Has she shown weakness, a facade, or patronized Dr. Lecter, it’s entirely possible that he may not have taken a liking to her. He realized that she was truly a match for his wits, a worthy opponent. Continually, she displays strength of character and impressive intellectual prowess. Well written central and opposition characters often have a symbiotic relationship (that was partially highlighted in David Gordon Green’s Halloween), one cannot truly exist without the other, or at least one is not as interesting without the other. The more interesting Clarice is, the more interesting Hannibal is. They both display traits that complement one another. It’s this complementary nature that Dr. Lecter finds intriguing and worthy of his admiration. And in the same way, Clarice is attracted to certain qualities of Dr. Lecter that prompt her to respect him as an individual despite his heinous crimes.

A couple of examples from the film in which men feel threatened by or undervalue the level of excellence that is found in the person and career of Clarice can be found in Dr. Chilton and the sheriff’s deputies in the funeral home after the body of Buffalo Bill’s first victim was discovered at which she is sidelined by Crawford and gawked at by the deputies. When Dr. Chilton learns that Clarice was able to connect with Dr. Lecter in her brief when he’s been selfishly attempting to for years, he seeks to subvert Clarice’s efforts, to no avail thankfully. His masculinity was threatened by a female, and Chilton was not about to have that. Good thing he got his comeuppance. When in the funeral home/morgue of Frederica Bimmel, Crawford intentionally sidelines Clarice because he felt the details were too disturbing for her; she shows him by taking control of the room by forcing the sheriff’s deputies out of the room because she has it under control and gets up close and personal with the victim. This is also the scene where she finds the telltale death’s head moth that has become synonymous with this film. In that scene we witness Clarice recognizing her unequal treatment, and rises to the occasion to show that she would not stand for it because she was objectively qualified to continue in her work without hand-holding or patronization.

Outside of the two etymologists, the only male character to not show any signs of misogyny nor gender discrimination is Dr. Hannibal Lecter himself. As highlighted earlier, he recognized her as a formidable opponent in his mind games. Although he certainly tries to get in her head, make her feel uncomfortable, and face her past demons to silence the lambs, nothing he does is motivated out of sexual desire or gender discrimination. Nothing in her role is truly defined by her gender. In fact, much like the character of Ripley in Alien was originally slated for a male character, the character of Clarice Starling could also be a male. I am glad it wasn’t because the narrative would lose some power. But the point is, that she is in no way defined by her gender, instead is defined by her integrity, character, and intelligence.

Even when taking on “masculine” traits and existing within a male dominated field of work, she never ceases to remain a feminine character. She and Alien‘s Ripley share this in common.  Jodie Foster states in reference to her iconic character, “Clarice is very competent and she is very human. She combats the villain with her emotionality, intuition, her frailty, and vulnerability. I don’t think there has ever been a female hero like that.” The character of Clarice Starling is one that should serve as a model for other female central characters. She contributed significantly to the world of cinema, but specifically the American horror film.

Ellen Ripley

This. Is. Alien. You are with. Sigourney Weaver. Aboard–the starship–Nostromo. Caution. The area you are en-ter-ing is extremely dan-ger-ous. Something has gone wrong… If you get why I punctuated that the way I did, then you remember the Alien scene on the former Great Movie Ride at Disney’s Hollywood Studios (oh how I miss that attraction). We cannot talk Women in Horror without analyzing the boundary busting, glass ceiling breaking Ellen Ripley (played by Sigourney Weaver). Ridley Scott’s science-fiction horror masterpiece that convinced us that “in space, no one can hear you scream” is still the definitive science-fiction/space horror film. Sitting between Halloween and Friday the 13th, this film came as a surprise for the horror genre because it countered the direction that the horror genre was going by reimagining the emerging slasher genre in a setting that is more terrifying and limiting than a house or town in which a serial killer is slaughtering teenagers. The strength of this movie is not in the Xenomorph, the effects (albeit great), or even the first characters you spend time with in the film, the strength of this film is in the ineffaceable character of Ripley.

Although she is, for all intents and purposes, not even on our radar for nearly 45mins into the film, following a tragedy, she is thrust into the forefront of this mission. Scott’s Alien dared to challenge the status quo in order to deliver the first female action hero, and place her in center stage. The long and short of it is that Ripley subverts the typical science-fiction hero trope to embody both the feminine and masculine to redefine what a hero is within the sci-fi/horror genre. Breaking gender norms for the time, she was neither arm candy, simply a side kick nor required rescuing by a male character. Her character and actions were not defined by gender. She is our final girl, and so much more. Not only did the character of Ripley contribute significantly to horror, she also broke ground for female heroines in the world of cinema at large.

Your central character need not always be the first or second character we encounter in a screenplay. This is true with Ripley as she emerges as the central character midway through the film. However, we are given hints at her destiny throughout the first act in subtle ways. It was important to the plot to establish her as a woman in order to make her actions later on in the film so kickass and assumption shattering. Had she been seen as “masculine” or strong from the onset, then we would not be as impressed with her actions–we would expect them. Part of her power as a strong female character in horror is taking what we assumed about her (or a female character in general) and subvert our predisposition. Whereas Ripley is not the first female heroic character in a horror film, she is one that never becomes subjected to the male gaze or becomes some fantasy version of a woman. Even though female heroic characters who wear sexy clothes, wield phallic guns, or use their bodies as femme fatals can be strong characters, they are still some heteronormative fantasy for a male screenwriter or director.

Essentially, the aforementioned female characters lack an authentic humanity. Ripley is strong, vulnerable, independent, scared, mortal; these elements that make her believably human. There is so little suspension of disbelief in her character that she could nearly exist in real life. Furthermore, her character is incredibly complex; she exhibits strong intuition and intelligence, chutzpah, is brash, talks about PTSD, outspoken, rigidly wants to go by the book instead of saving a man’s life, has a natural beauty but doesn’t spend much time on hair or makeup. All these traits portray someone who has incredible depth and dimension. She is a survivor. No matter how grizzly, messy, constricting, or frightening her soundings become, she remains steadfast, collected, and brave. As the 1970s saw many changes in censorship, ratings, guidelines, etc., the ability to show gorier, more visceral body horror special effects, and on screen violence allowed Scott to confront the character of Ripley with cinematically innovative ways to test her resilience and survivorship.

The character of Ellen Ripley is also a strong pillar of the American horror film by virtue of her representation of gender politics. Even before it became popular, in more recent times, to use both male and female characters in motion pictures as a conduit to comment on the state of affairs for a particular group within our society, Ridley Scott crafted a visual masterpiece that did just that. Highly innovative, forward thinking, and progressive. The subtext of the film confronts us with a woman trying her best to fit into a man’s world. In addition to that subtext, research into the screenplay for this film shows that all the characters were written as gender neutral. Interesting stuff, right?!? Another gender-related observation in the character of Ripley, is her both metaphorically and physiologically clothing herself in masculinity all while remaining a women. In one scene, Ripley steps into a space suit. And this space suit can be read as Ripley playing the role of a man while remaining a women at her core in order to challenge the patriarchal system to prove that she is capable of anything that a masculine hero is.

Ripley is a highly intelligent character, realizes that about herself, and does not allow herself to be patronized or undermined. She does her job aboard the Nostromo like a legit boss. She knows procedure and protocol, and will follow it in order to protect her crew. Figuratively, she is protecting the ship from being willfully penetrated by a foreign object. This could be read as a commentary on rape. She is forcefully overruled, and we all know what happens next. Further commentary depicts male characters “forgetting” that Ripley is the senior officer. But because she is female, they feel they know better. I bet they wish they had followed her orders. Although much of what I’ve written deals with the masculine qualities of Ripley, her character would not have been as powerful a character if it wasn’t for her feminine side as well. When all hell is breaking loose, she soothes the nerves of the crew and offers comfort. Exemplary motherly qualities. Had a man been in her role, then he would most likely have not exhibited such love for the crew. Her success as a hero has as much to do with the touch of a women as it does the chutzpah of a man. Another motherly quality found in Ripley is her persistent urge for the crew to function as a group. Through the brilliant cinematography, we are consistently shown a group that is fractures and continually fails to band together until it is too late. Interestingly, each character meets his or her demise because of a tragic flaw and failure to group together to function as ONE crew instead of self-centered individuals. Had the group functioned as one, then more may have survived. This hypothesis is witnessed in the Ripley in Act 3 because she essentially embodies all the good qualities found in the other characters (think Captain Planet). She combines what everyone did well into one character. That is why she is the final girl. Only by combining all the qualities of the crew was she able to go toe-to-toe with the Xenomorph killing machine.

There are actually three prominent female characters in Alien. Ripley, the Xenomorph, and The Nostromo. Although Ripley is our central character, I would be remiss to not mention the other two that could be analyzed individually themselves. Much like Ripley exhibits both masculine and feminine characteristics, so does the Xenomorph with a mouth that oscillates between vaginal and phallic in nature. And finally, The Nostromo ostensibly gives birth to all the astronauts at the beginning of the film; and therefore could be referred to as the mother ship. Playing around with gender does not stop there. The facegrabber impregnates a male character and he gives birth to the Xenomorph. Underscoring so many elements and conflicts in this film is this idea of subverting gender identity with the intent to horrify by tapping into primal heteronormative fears. And let’s face it, child birth is terrifying. Unfortunately, all the sequels failed to live up to the substantive nature of the original and devolve into a generic futuristic action-adventure series; but the original Alien delivered a nightmare-inducing “haunted house” movie set in the far reaches of space where “no one can hear you scream,” and provided us with the breakthrough character of Ellen Ripley.

Nancy Thompson

“Whatever you do, don’t fall asleep.” More than a final girl, Nancy is a live girl. While Halloween‘s Laurie Strode often gets credit for being the original final girl, and with good reason, a solid argument could be made that A Nightmare on Elm Street‘s Nancy Thompson (played by Heather Langenkamp) is the OG final girl. For my third character analysis for Women in Horror Month, I want to explore the character of Nancy in A Nightmare on Elm Street. Unlike the previous two analyses, Nancy is not yet an adult, pursuing her career in law enforcement or the far reaches of space. She is an every-man with whom we can identify, because we were all, or maybe still are, teenagers facing everyday struggles with our relationship with our parents, love interests, and our friends. With death surrounding her on all sides, she powers through the grave conflict, to face her nightmares, and defeat the Dream Master himself Freddy Krueger. Well, set him back anyway. Haha.

Unlike Laurie Strode, Nancy is not the final girl by default; she completely Home Alones Freddy and continually fights back without ever backing down. She takes an active role in ensuring her survival. Furthermore, no one comes in to aid in her rescue or the defeat of Freddy; Nancy is alone in her endeavors. Despite her strength of character and resilience, she is largely overlooked by fans. Her co-star Freddy Krueger (played by the incomparable Robert Englund) steals the spotlight. Although Freddy is my favorite horror slasher villain, I often wonder why Nancy doesn’t get the same treatment that Laurie gets in Halloween. Making her debut in 1984’s A Nightmare on Elm Street, Nancy appears again in Dream Warriors, and New Nightmare (as Heather, but she is still very much Nancy). Grab your coffee, and stay up with me as we explore Nancy Thompson!

We aren’t given much insight into the degree to which Nancy excels in school, but she is undoubtedly quite the scholar! Not that whether or not she is a member of the honor society makes a difference, but it does aid in showing us that she possesses superior critical thinking skills. If not for her brilliant combination of street and book smarts, she may not have survived this very real nightmare. Unlike many final girls who are often on the defensive, she spends much of the movie on the offense–she goes looking for Freddy. Who does that??? Nancy, that’s who! We witness Nancy read books to learn more about dreams and newspapers to learn more about Fred Krueger; furthermore, she experiments with booby traps and methods to remain awake or force sleep. Resilient, resourceful, and ready. A great alliteration to describe Nancy. Her survival does not happen by default or through a deus ex machina, she survives through grit, determination, and a willingness to learn and place herself in harm’s way. It’s this notion that she transcends what we think of as a final girl to even go so far as to subvert our predispositions. Whereas typical final girls merely survive, Nancy takes control of the Freddy conflict in a revenge fashion to win. “I’m into survival,” as Nancy so brilliantly puts it.

Nancy is not concerned with innocence or following the rules to maintain the status quo. While she still may be a “good girl,” she is not concerned with playing the good girl card in order to somehow survive Freddy. On display in this film is the cinematic and literary construct of the maiden turned warrior. We witness a psychological growth arc paralleling a physiological transformation, in the character of Nancy, that takes her from everyday teenager, complete with the angst, to heroine. And her inner-personal journey is not without its own obstacles and conflict. At every step of the way, Nancy encounters loved ones in her life (be they family or friends) who consistently do not believe in her–until it is too late. All of Elm Street doesn’t believe her, but she knows that Freddy is killing the Elm Street kids in their nightmares, and she is going to prove it and stop him.

One of the messages that I preach to my screenwriting class is the importance of communicating character thoughts and feelings visually (only write what you can see), and Wes Craven does precisely that to communicate how everyone feels about Nancy’s claim that Freddy is back. For example, Nancy’s mother violates her body by subjecting her to sleep tests and even making her a prisoner of her own home with the bars on the windows. A close reading of the imagery associated with the trauma Nancy experiences can be read as a metaphor of adolescence, transitioning from childhood into adulthood. Whether experiencing direct or implied trauma from Freddy, her family, or friends, she endures gaslighting, imprisonment, mental rape, and attempted murder all within the confines of the home–and more specifically–the intimacy of the mind. Not only does Nancy prove that she may in fact be the definitive final girl, though overshadowed by Laurie, by her active role in ensuring her survival against Freddy, she also survives psychological and physiological trauma enacted upon her by loved ones. Her voice was silenced, her path to escape was barred, and her claims that Freddy returned from the dead into the dream world were completely dismissed. This parallels what many women face every day–they are not taken seriously or they are patronized. Her character is a metaphor for what many women face daily.

One may conclude that Nancy lacks the vulnerability and (heteronormatively speaking) feminine nature that is required, traditionally speaking, of a final girl. Certainly the preceding paragraphs skew toward ultimate horror badass, but the beauty of Nancy’s character is that she grows from a vulnerable female teenager into the final girl that we know today. Her all-too-human feminine vulnerability is shown through her white pajamas with pink roses, her teenage angst, crying when she is upset or feels dismissed, and she experiences the emotional rollercoaster that we all, but especially teenagers, ride. After rewatching A Nightmare on Elm Street in the cinema for a 35th anniversary special one night only screening, I was reminded of just how much of a girl she is throughout the whole movie. Not only does she get scared and cry and even take cover behind Glen early on in the film, but she also wears clothes that reinforce the idea that she doesn’t need to take on masculine traits in order to defeat evil. Her character transformation occurs in the mind and she proves that a girl can do anything that a guy can do. She does not allow the constant barrage of dismissal or people telling her that she’s crazy to detour her from what she knows to the nightmarish truth.

Further distinguishing Nancy from other final girls is the manner in which she does defeat Freddy Krueger. Whereas we assume she hasn’t had sex with her boyfriend Glen and does not appear to use illicit drugs or undermines authority for her own selfish pleasure, she does not defeat Freddy because she is a “good girl.” Nancy relies upon resilience, wit, and confidence; ultimately, she defeats Freddy by refusing to give him anymore of her emotional energy (a feminine trait) instead of wielding some phallic weapon like a knife, machete, or bludgeoning tool. Unlike other final girls whom become a de facto male character during the showdown, she remains committed to her femininity. Unlike the gender politics of Alien, the character of Nancy doesn’t oscillate between feminine and masculine. Instead, she transforms from normal, innocent teenager with many of the same familiar and friendship conflicts we face to the brave, determined, proactive smart heroine that defeated Freddy (temporarily anyway), all while never shifting from her typical female behaviors and identity.

After Freddy’s Revenge (and you can hear my review of this installment on Cocktail Party Massacre), Nancy returns in Dream Warriors as a graduate student working and studying at a psychiatric hospital. She may have exchanged her pink rose pajamas for 80s power suits, but she is still the same Nancy. The Freddy experience has certainly had an effect upon her, but she has taken that traumatic experienced, harnessed the power of it and channeled it in a positive direction to help others who are experiencing psychological trauma that has real world physical traits. Specifically, she researches the mental and physical effects of nightmares. Without diverting into a plot analysis of this tertiary installment in the franchise, she is able to successfully transfer her strengths to the Elm Street children. Completely unrelated to the character of Nancy, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention my favorite Freddy quote of all time that appears in this movie, “welcome to prime time, bitch!”

Even before meta horror became popular, and Wes Craven himself would write and direct the definitive meta horror Scream two years later, he returned with full creative control to the Nightmare franchise to write the final chapter (until Freddy vs Jason and the awful 2010 remake) in the reign of Freddy, he gave us New Nightmare. Despite her death in Dream Warriors, “Nancy” stars once again in the Nightmare on Elm Street third chapter New Nightmare. Nancy is in quotes because it is the actress Heather Langenkamp as a character in this meta Nightmare film. She is Heather but very much Nancy all at the same time. In addition to Heather playing herself playing Nancy, Robert Englund plays himself playing Freddy. Other actors/characters from the original A Nightmare on Elm Street have appearances as well. In this film, Heather faces her reality fracturing as a nightmarish specter from her past comes to haunt her. It looks like Freddy, but it is much more sinister. What I love about Heather/Nancy is the fact that she channels her Nancy from the original and Dream Warriors. But she doesn’t phone in her performance or give us the same character. Her “Nancy” has grown. One of the biggest differences between Nancy and Heather is that Heather is now challenged with protecting her son at all costs. Through her passion, wit, confidence, and unyielding ability to face the darkness head on, she confronts Freddy to once again, become the final girl.

Annie Wilkes

Do your ankles hurt just at the thought of Annie Wilkes? Well, they should because she is one of the most terrifying Women in Horror ever. Perhaps you do not remember her by name, but you most likely know the film Misery. Based on the best-selling novel by Stephen King, Misery is widely regarded as one of the most terrifying psychological horror films ever. Directed by Rob Reiner, it stars then-newcomer Kathy Bates as Annie Wilkes. Playing opposite Kathy is James Caan as celebrity author Paul Sheldon. Just a quick note, the sultry Lauren Bacall also makes an appearance in this horror film as Sheldon’s agent. While my other character analyses for Women in Horror Month focussed on final girls, for this final entry, I desired to explore a truly sinister female character whom captivated us with her outstanding performance. In a quintessential Hitchcockian fashion, Rob Reiner crafts a phenomenal adaptation of the King novel that mostly takes place in one location. But this one location houses two indelible characters, one of which is a wildly disturbed and frightening fangirl. Annie convinced us that anyone who claims to be your No.1 fan may actually be your No.1 worst nightmare. Next time a nondescript motherly figure invites you to her picturesque cabin in Colorado, you may want to consider staying at the local Holiday Inn instead.

Talk about a character with incredible depth! Annie Wilkes is one of those exemplary characters in horror that provides ample opportunity to apply critical lenses to analyze her psychology and sociology. Clearly she displays signs of psychopathy, but there is so much more to her character. And those layers are what makes her one of the most terrifying characters in horror film history. On the surface, she is a monster-like human; but beneath that sociopathic behavior, she is clearly suffering from severe mental disorders brought on by past trauma. Collectively, we can surmise that Annie’s past traumas left her feeling that everyone and everything is out to get her. Therefore, she runs a countryside farm in mountainous Colorado away from everyone. Her only interaction with outsiders is when she has to run to town to pickup food and supplies. In addition to her mental disorders, she also displays signs of agoraphobia. Although some of her mental disorders have direct impact on her violent nature, other disorders are largely indirectly responsible, such as her likely obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). Evidence supporting this can be seen in her immaculately clean and organized house. Her OCD contributes significantly to her obsession with Paul Sheldon. The only joy in her life comes from the romance novels that she reads–a vicarious way to experience a full life–namely the Misery series by Paul Sheldon. Essentially, she is the perfect storm of psychological and emotional disorders all wrapped up in a an unassuming citizen of a small Colorado town. She could very well be your neighbor or one of your social media followers. Perhaps she is YOUR No.1 fan.

Although screenwriter William Goldman adds in a subplot of the town’s sheriff investigating the disappearance of Paul Sheldon, which works very well for the film even though it was not in the novel, the story is about two characters (representing two sides of the same coin) trapped in a room together, locked in a psycho-social battle of wills. Ostensibly, this story features two characters whom represent the creative mind of Stephen King during his real addiction to alcohol. I mention this real-life time of darkness in King’s life not to glorify it because it helped inspire one of his greatest novels turned film (need I mention Velvet Buzzsaw), but it helps us understand the depth and power of the character of Annie Wilkes. Both Sheldon and Wilkes work so well because they represent real life villains in the life of King. King’s real battle between his healthy mind and drug-induced state parallels Paul Sheldon’s battle for freedom with Annie Wilkes standing in his way. In a most brilliant fashion, the sadistic former nurse Annie is the manifestation of how controlling a drug addiction can be–how it makes the user a prisoner of one’s own mind and body. This subplot is strategically woven into the main action plot then delivered through the character development and character-driven scenes in the story.

Annie is not completely evil. Early on, she shows us that she cares about victims as she could not have known that it was Paul Sheldon that she was rescuing from the car crash. Being his No.1 fan, as soon as she saw him, she knew precisely who he was and therefore her obsessive nature takes over. There is a moment that encapsulates one of the film’s themes that is often overlooked. Prior to caring for Paul, Annie takes his attache full of manuscripts and tucks it under her arm thus symbolizing that Paul’s work is more important than Paul’s life. But that doesn’t confirm her psychopathic nature. Even upon the more formal introduction of Annie, she shows us that she cares about Paul’s recovery as she crudely splints his broken legs. Why not take him to the hospital? Well, because she is his No.1 fan and no one can take care of him the way she can. She goes on to shower Paul with accolades. Claims to have read his Misery novels several times, even committing them to memory. Furthermore, she closely identifies with Misery Chastain (the series’ central character), so cares deeply what happens to her. Albeit being hospitalized in a stranger’s private residence is a little disconcerting, Paul grows to trust and even like Annie. He trusts her so much that he allows her to read the unpublished manuscript for the final Misery novel. And this is where things take a turn for the worse, Paul’s hospital is about to turn into a prison ran by the sinister warden from hell.

During Annie’s rage over the offensive swearing in the unpublished manuscript, she spills the hot soup on Paul and we begin to see the signs of her mania, twisted morals, paranoia, and negative effects of OCD. Obviously, we learn more about her psychopathy as the scenes unfold, but in retrospect, we witness the signs in big bold letters from this moment on. But she doesn’t continually behave in such a neurotic manner. She oscillates back and forth. This oscillation is an important aspect to her character because it drives up the tension and suspense because we don’t know when or where to expect her dangerous behavior. There are moments that we anticipate a violent outburst, but then she fools us by not delivering. By the same token, there are moments that we don’t expect it, and she terrifies us. The character trait of Annie’s that makes her one of the most terrifying in the Blockbuster of horror is her lack of feeling. Everything she does, she rationalizes without regard for quality of life or humankind. The very definition of sociopath.

The psycho-social disorders affecting the behavior and psychology of Annie are never confirmed, and don’t need to be. We don’t need to know precisely why or what causes Annie to behave the way she does. Because if we fully understood her, she would cease to be as nightmare-inducing as she is. It’s important that Annie Wilkes remain a type of Boogeyman. However, we can gather from the film that she suffers from a form schizotypal personality disorder, OCD (which I’ve mentioned), and meets most of the criteria of borderline personality disorder. A trifecta of disorders that creates the monster that we encounter in the film. She copes with these disorders by executing numerous defensive mechanisms including denial, projection, rationalization, regression, fantasy, and more. Whereas we often talk about her psychopathy and sociopathy, we often neglect to recognize her highly intelligent mind. Too bad her intelligence isn’t matched by empathy and and human kindness. Her intellect is observed through how she anticipates Paul’s movements and knowing when he’s been out of his room. And an intelligent villain is the most dangerous and unpredictable of all.

Aside from her disorders, unpredictable behavior, and lack of empathy, attributes that can be found in other horror villains, she stands out because she is a women. It’s her feminism that enables her to stand out against similar villains such as Norman Bates, Jack Torrance, Buffalo Bill and others. When we typically think of female characters or women in general (and I realize I am over-generalizing), we think of someone whom is kind, hospitable, nurturing, passive, and empathetic. Annie subverts those notions in so many ways, many of which have been outlined in this analysis. She makes Joan Crawford from Mommy Dearest look like Mrs. Brady. As out of control as Annie behaves, she is very much in control. She IS the one holding all the cards and calling the shots in this prison. While other characters (male or female) with similar disorders or backgrounds that parallel Annie’s have lost their minds, Annie knows precisely what she is doing, and is supremely strategic when she does it. We may be cheering when Paul finally kills her with the typewriter, in brilliant ironic fashion, but she is an incredibly strong female character who can hold her own, backs down to no one.

Not only is Misery one of the top psychological horror films ever made, but Annie is a noteworthy female character in the horror genre. While the final girls get most of the attention when we talk Women in Horror, it’s important to not forget that horror has given us terrifying women as well. Whereas so often the most interesting villains (or characters of opposition) get to be played by men, this film would not be as powerful is the roles were gender swapped. The fact that this psychopath is a women makes her all the more disturbing. She crafts such overwhelming sense of dread that is more frightening because we aren’t used to female characters as the main villains. Kathy Bates was a perfect choice for this role, and she has gone on to play all kinds of roles but the horror community gets extra excited when she plays a horror role. While horror doesn’t often win awards at the Oscars, Kathy Bates won the Academy Award for an actress in a leading role for her work in Misery.

Ryan teaches screenwriting at the University of Tampa. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter!

Follow him!

Twitter: RLTerry1

Instagram: RL_Terry