The Magician and the Skeptic

Part 1 – A Short Story

A magician walks on stage. Before him he sees a packed audience. The magician says, “Ladies and gentlemen, what you are going to see is all real. None of this is fake. I am calling upon dark forces to show you feats beyond our world.”

The audience watches. They’re enamored with the performance. They laugh and gasp and cheer.

There’s this one guy in the audience. He fancies himself a skeptic. He’s intensely focused on the magician. He’s trying to figure out the tricks. At one point he turns to the audience member next to him, “That magician isn’t performing real magic. He’s faking.”

His fellow audience member shush him. This skeptic is appalled. Doesn’t everyone want to know that the magician is faking? He’s hoodwinking everyone! It’s not right. Everyone in this audience paid a lot of money for the tickets to this show.

But here’s the thing: The magician knows what he is doing isn’t “real” magic. It’s deception. It’s fake.

The audience knows the magician isn’t performing “real” magic.

The magician knows the audience knows that he’s faking.

The audience knows the magician knows that they know he’s faking.

Everyone is on the same page except the skeptic.

How could this be? Shouldn’t the skeptic be celebrated for exposing the truth?

The one piece of information that the skeptic is lacking is that the audience and magician are engaging in a social contract.

Here is how the social contract works. The magician is an entertainer. He is offering his services to perform in front of a crowd and entertain them. His medium for entertainment is slight-of-hand and deception to create what is known as magic. The audience is paying to be entertained. They are offering up money in exchange for the goods and services of being entertained. This does not mean they are “turning their brains off” nor does it mean they are ignorant to poor quality entertainment. It means they are choosing to sit down and watch someone be entertaining. In this case they are consciously, willingly paying to sit down and watch someone use slight-of-hand and deception to create what is known as magic.

Now let’s talk about plot holes in movies.

Part 2 – The Roots of the Problem

I’m old enough to remember a time before the internet, but I’m not old enough to remember how people talked about movies before the internet. My budding interest in film rose alongside AIM, Limewire, and Cable/DSL.

In fact, full disclosure, I’ve only really been following larger public trends in regards to discussing film for the past five or so years.

Probably the single most defining facet about film discussions on the internet is that of “plot holes.” People looooove to talk about “plot holes.” Countless lists, articles, and forum prompts are centered around finding plot holes in movies.

Why is this? Why are people so obsessed with plot holes?

I can think of a few general reasons.


I sincerely think the internet is one of humanity’s crowning achievements. Forget your porn and cat jokes. The internet is the type of invention that appears in sci-fi novels about futuristic societies. A network of interconnected machines that allow just people to communicate with each other across the globe? Come on, how can you not appreciate that?

There is one weird thing about the internet that, in my experience, isn’t talked about a lot.

See, the internet can give a voice to anyone, however, there’s something lost in that immediacy.

Today, in 2014, anyone whether they’re 14 or 50 can start a blog or a Tumblr. They can start typing out their opinions about any topic. Anyone in the world can start a website to publish their opinions on movies. (Like this website…)

There’s no apprenticeship to people’s knowledge when you can just immediately publish a blog. When you go to something like film school you will have a teacher to guide you and help navigate through the wonderful world of cinema. They will help you contextualize films and understand them in a greater capacity.

Learning about film helps you assess film.

This lack of guidance is why I think people gravitate towards pointing out and finding plot holes. The term plot hole has been so bastardized that it is now an incredibly easy thing to do. Plot holes are now basically anything contained within a film that does not sync up with our actual reality. So of course it’s easy to find plot holes within FICTIONALLY CONSTRUCTED UNIVERSES.

Doesn’t matter if it’s a sci-fi opera or a romantic comedy. What you see on film is a fictionally created universe for that particular film. Of course there’s going to be inconsistencies with our reality. It’s a fundamental aspect to cinema.


As I’ve become more seriously interested in criticism — specifically film — I’ve noticed some oddly hostile reactions to critics.

Think of how many times you’ve heard someone say a variation of “Critics don’t know what they’re talking about.” It’s a lot, right? You might be guilty of it yourself.

In my experience, people seem to straddle this weird line where they want to talk about movies in depth but also abhor the idea of being one of those fancy pants critics. For whatever reason people are utterly convinced that critics are not normal people or that a critic’s sole job is to destroy or devalue a movie.

First of all, assuming that a critic would solely want to focus on being negative about movies assumes that a person would willingly want to take a career path focusing on something they dislike. What sort of sane or rational person would want to continually subjugate themselves to something they hate?

Second, I have read many, many, many critics express the opinion that they would rather champion a movie than dismiss it. In other words they would rather write about a movie the perceive as good rather than a movie they perceive bad. They are not setting out to maliciously take down what you like.

These two points lead to a third point: A good percentage of people don’t even understand the point of what a critic does. A critic’s job is to a) assess the work against the medium it is presented in (e.g. this movie is a good movie because it represents qualities of good movies) and b) assess whether the movie has any significant or notable relationship to our society. Both (a) and (b) are important because it leads to c) critics help the audience learn how to recognize (a) and (b) for themselves.

Critics watch a lot of movies, but general audience members are also capable of watching a lot of movies too. The more a person engages in an activity, the more likely it is that said person will want to explore the activity in an in-depth manner.

But they can’t. Because doing so would mean they are a critic.

In the past few years this has manifested itself in people using “plot holes” as an outlet for a way to talk about movies in-depth without talking about movies in-depth.


The internet is built for communication. Communication between people can lead to community building. So the internet is used as a communication platform for all types of communities boasting all types of interests. Whether that’s film, comic books, cricket, sewing, wake boarding, or LITERALLY ANY HOBBY EVER CONCEIVED.

One wildly popular community subset on the internet is Skeptic.

There’s nothing wrong with being a skeptic. It’s important to battle junk science like anti-vaccination, power bracelets, and astrology, among others.

The downside to communities on the internet is that they can very quickly become echo chambers where the same opinions and attitudes are repeated so much that it drowns out any other opinion.

In other words, there’s a time and place for skepticism. When it comes to plot holes, it’s generally not the place.

It seems to me there’s large swaths of communities of people like in the short story above. People who fancy themselves skeptics but are hopelessly clueless about the social contract of seeing a movie.

These skeptics act as if they are crusaders spreading the word that Movies Are Fake. They act unaware that, yes, we already knew that. You don’t need to scream from the rooftops the hero didn’t reload the gun.

Part 3 – Fixing the Problem

So how do we reverse this trend? How do we stop people from spreading the gospel of Plot Holes?

First should be that people need to be aware of the social contract between entertainers and audiences. Unless you’re being Clockwork Orange-ed, you’re probably actively choosing to sit down and watch a movie. That means you are actively choosing to let someone (or in the case of movies hundreds of people) entertain you. You don’t have to blindly love every movie. Nor do you have to “turn your brain off.” Just remember that movies are not 100% accurate representations of the Real World. They are always approximations. (This is especially true with movies Based on a True Story.)

Second is that people really need to understand that critics are not out to destroy the world with their remarks. Only a crazy person would devote their life to writing about something they hate. It’s unfortunate that the word “criticism” has been co-opted to mean “needlessly negative.” Critics are like teachers. They’re just trying to help their readers contextualize the movie. Also, I would like to point out that a critic’s job is not to predict whether or not you’ll like a movie. That’s insane. I have no idea how that perception came to be.

Third is the hardest of all.

Whenever you feel the impulse to point out a “plot hole” in a movie — STOP! Don’t do it. Instead replace that impulse with the desire to figure out the THEME of a movie.

It is far, far, far more important to recognize a theme in a movie. Every movie should have a theme. Whether it’s grandiose — the movie might be a complicated allegory of the Cold War; or whether it’s simple — betrayal. The theme is what a movie’s about. Not what happens in a movie, but what the purpose of the story being told is set to show to the audience.

In other words, the theme should explain why the filmmakers decided to tell this story.

Aside: Another way to increase your “enjoyment” of a movie is to figure out what kind of story the filmmakers wanted to tell and why they wanted to tell it. I do believe that there’s a sense of entitlement of audience members these days where they sit down to watch a movie cross armed saying “Entertain me!” If you meet the filmmakers halfway and try to figure out what the purpose of the story is, then you will have a greater appreciation of the story. It’s not about what you wanted as an audience member, it’s about what the filmmakers wanted to say.

Part 4 – A Quick Interlude

A common cry I see online or hear in person is “I just want to be entertained.” This is actually a perfectly valid way to digest movies or other forms of stimuli — books, tv, opera, etc. The thing is that often times the exclamation of “I just want to be entertained” is really another way for a person to say “I don’t want to think critically about this thing I’m consuming.” Remember: People are irrationally afraid of critics or becoming critics.

It’s a variation on having it both ways. The person who says “they just want to be entertained” will go on to complain about “plot holes.” You don’t have to “turn off your brain” “just to be entertained.” Remember the social contract. Remember that you are willingly sitting down to watch a movie.

The other problem with “I just want to be entertained” is that there’s a slight tinge of entitlement to the statement. “I just want to be entertained” could easily be “I demand to be entertained.” When people are disappointed in movies they’ve seen just for entertainment value, that’s when I see and hear a lot of “plot hole” talk or other surface level criticisms. The reality is that choosing any movie to sit down and watch could potentially be bad. There’s no real way of knowing if you’ll like a movie — or be entertained by it — until you watch it.

Just wanting to be entertained is a bit of a paradox. Unless you’re watching a movie you’ve already seen, there’s no true way to predict if you will in fact be entertained. The social contract says that patrons will pay entertainers to provide the service of entertaining. It makes no mention of the quality of said entertainment.

Part 5 – But Wait.. There are Plot Holes

I wanted to save this for last because I didn’t want to mix my messaging of this essay.

Yes, there are actual plot holes in film. They happen sometimes. Sometimes it’s because of sloppy filmmaking other times it’s an accident. Whatever the case they do exist.

But before you dismiss all of what I say just keep this in mind: it’s far more important to focus on THEME than plot holes.

I’ve heard some people express the opinion that “plot holes take them out of the story.” To my ears that just means that they are people who do not realize the social contract of watching a movie and do not realize that what they see on film is not a 100% accurate representation of our world.

There are times when a film is so poorly made that it has no redeeming values. It happens. Not every movie is going to be a winner. However, I’m willing to bet that no matter how bad a movie is, the plot holes aren’t the sole thing that made it terrible. Look to things like: Is the movie clear in its direction; can you follow along with what’s happening visually? Does the acting help you immerse yourself in the story or is it distracting? Does the music fit tonally with the story at hand? Is there a theme to the story? Is the dialogue pleasant to the ear or does everything sound stilted?

In these instances the filmmakers have failed you. They have not earned your respect or admiration. They have failed to create a work of art that has any meaningful benefit to society as a whole.

However, I would like to say that I think in our current climate audiences are really quick to claim a movie is a failure. Maybe this is a by-product of criticism being co-opted to mean excessively negative comments. In the past few years it seems like people are always itching to claim whatever movie is the new disaster and dog pile onto it.

So in addition to being quick to exclaim a movie is bad because of “plot holes” we also have people quick to exclaim a movie is a failure in general. These attitudes are not healthy.

What I find people are lacking these days is faith in filmmakers.

The whole movie going climate is so drenched in negativity that audiences have forgotten that the vast, vast, vast majority of people working in the film industry are PEOPLE WHO LOVE MOVIES.

We’re all (not so) secretly attracted to the idea that Hollywood is populated with people who make movies just to make money and more-or-less trick audiences into paying for a ticket. While there are movies that are blatant cash grabs, there are also an equal number of movies being made because there is a passion for the material. Marvel makes a shitload of money with their current crop of movies, but you can also tell they put a lot of passion into what they’re selling. It’s a win-win.

If you want a glimpse into what tricking audiences is actually like then look no further than Asylum. Asylum is a production company that churns out movies with similar titles and premises to upcoming blockbuster movies. Examples include Alien vs. Hunter, Atlantic Rim, and Transmorphers. None of these movies have excessively high budgets. No one in their right mind would give an excessive amount of money to Asylum for the purpose of confusing and tricking people.

So next time you go to watch a movie just remember it’s far, far, far more likely that the people who made the movie were passionate about it. Even if they weren’t die hard passionate about the material, for them to make a good movie means they can continue to work in the industry. The motivation is to do good work.

Also, quick side note. We’ve gone through a paradigm shift in regards to movie distribution. Video On Demand, iTunes, and other services are quietly revolutionizing the way filmmakers can distribute their movie to audiences. So if you only rely on actors appearing on talk shows to determine what movies to watch, you’re gonna have a bad time. Yes, it’s more work for audiences, but you need to learn to find outlets other than billboards, commercials, and talk shows to find new movies to watch. The independent film scene is reveling in the new ways of distribution. I’m not saying all independent film is great, but these outlets like Video On Demand are places where you can see novel movies that do different things that what’s be advertised on talk shows.

Part 6 – Conclusion

There’s an old saying that goes, “Documentaries are for facts; Movies are for the truth.” (This isn’t a steadfast rule. It’s more of a rough sketch to illustrate the differences between movies and documentaries.)

The gist is that movies expose emotional truths about our world. They are made so us humans can express emotions like greed, lust, friendship, or empowerment to other humans. That’s why the most important part of a movie’s story is the theme.

Making movies is a social act. Hell, all types of stories are. We tell stories to each other as a way of bringing ourselves together. When you watch a movie with a character who is experiencing frustration you should focus on how you relate to the character’s frustration, not about how he lives in New York City in a huge apartment and is supposedly poor.

The point is that movies are powerful tools that can help us contextualize our world and humanity. Not all movies will have deep themes. Some movies are just like amusement park rides. But that’s okay. It just goes to show that humans like to experience something thrilling.

But when you solely focus on plot holes as an entry point for criticism you’re only inhibiting yourself. You’re reducing down this wonderful medium that can transport us to space, the distant past, and into other human’s eyes into whether or not it is a true, 100% accurate reflection of our reality.


Watch This Movie: Drug War (2012)

I absolutely love foreign action movies. Especially movies filmed in Hong Kong or Japan. My love for these movies definitely started with the work of John Woo. I’d still probably consider Hard Boiled to be my favorite action movie of all time. (I change my list of favorites frequently. Even if Hard Boiled wasn’t at the top of my list, it’s still incredible.)

While I am still a huge fan of John Woo’s work, the unfortunate thing is that his last great movie was Face/Off which came out in 1997. Since then he hasn’t really made any movie worth noting.

There is, however, a spiritual successor to Woo. His name is Johnny To.

drug war

Johnny To, unlike John Woo, is an incredibly prolific filmmaker who makes movies in a wide variety of genres. (This is something I was actually unaware of. I thought he had only made violent heroic bloodshed movies. I plan on investigating his other work in the near future.)

All the movies of To’s that I’ve seen are action movies and they’re incredible. They’re definitely violent. I think theĀ  draw is how the action is always clearly defined on screen. Even better is that To has a strong sense of style that makes the action always quite unique.

On top of that, To knows to give the character’s in his films a lot of care. Too many times an action filmmaker will forgo character work and pile on the action — much to a film’s detriment.

This all brings me to To’s latest movie, Drug War.

The story is about a high ranking anti-drug cop who makes an uneasy alliance with a high ranking meth manufacturer. It’s a tried-and-true premise, but what really sets it apart from other movies is the characterizations of the cop and criminal.

The cop is a no nonsense type who will do just about anything to stop the drug trade in his city. The thing is, he’s kind of a show off. He puts on this stoic demeanor but for most of the movie he’s adopting different personas while undercover. During the movie you get the sense that he might really enjoy that part of the job.

The criminal is also stoic. What sets him apart from being a cliche is a bit spoiler-ish. All I’ll say is that his character’s personality seems to be all over the map but it all comes from a place of consistency. He’s a wily one. It’s very entertaining to watch him look for all the angles in whatever he’s doing.

Another great part of the movie is how tense it is. The movie is pretty much one long series of encounters where the cops get themselves into a situation and barely scrape out. In an interesting creative choice, most of the movie’s most tense scenes play out in relative silence. There’s not much in the way of a musical score. The characters only seem to talk when they absolutely have to. In fact, two supporting characters are deaf. Silence is important stylistically and thematically.

Even the few action scenes in the movie play out to silence. Most of what’s heard on screen is dialogue and gunshots. The lack of musical score somehow increases the tension in the movie.

Drug War is an absolutely amazing piece of straight forward genre cinema. It’s a simple yet tense movie that has a surprising amount of depth to it.

Considering Johnny To has such a wide range of films under his belt, this could be a great introductory movie to watch if you’ve never seen any of his other work.

Wrapping Up the 2013 Fear-a-thon Spectral-tacular!

First of all, I’d just like to thank anyone who read any of the articles during the Fear-a-thon Spectral-tacular. I had a hell of a lot of fun writing them and I hope you had fun reading them.

Also this whole Fear-a-thon experiment is an homage to film critic Brian Collins’ Horror Movie A Day website that he ran from 2007 to 2013 daily. I discovered the site a bit too late, but it’s still a really fun website with great reviews.

This wrap up post will be presented in three parts. The first parts are my thoughts on the process, the second part is my rankings of the movies I watched, and for the third part I thought it might be interesting to list my five favorite horror movies of all time.


I hope this doesn’t ruin the magic but I didn’t exactly watch each movie the day an article was posted about it. Most of time throughout the month I was ahead of the curve by one to two days. I did really watch all the movies though. And it was the first time I had seen any of those movies. There’s 10 million articles online about The Shining and Friday the 13th. I figured it would be better to write about movies I hadn’t seen, even if they were movies that not a lot of other people had seen either (like Ghoulies).

I think about two weeks into the process I really hit a groove with how to write each post and what sort of info should be presented in the post. I kind of want to go back to the earlier posts and rewrite them. I didn’t want to do a dry plot recap. I wanted to hit the good parts and bad parts of the movie in a way that didn’t totally spoil said movie. For some movies like The Lords of Salem the most interesting part is the theme of the movie. So spoiling it is a little unavoidable. I hope I didn’t ruin any movies for anyone!

If I were to do this next year I think I’ll try to plan out the movie’s I’d be seeing instead of being at the whims of Netflix’s selection. They have a decent selection in the horror subcategory, but it’s not as robust as I’d have liked. Considering the direction Netflix is going, by next year they’re selection might exponentially increase. I also might try to expand it to a horror movie every day instead of just the weekdays. Although that might kill me. I’m not sure how Brian Collins did it for 6 years.

I think the thing that’s surprised me the most about this experiment is that I haven’t yet burned out on horror movies. I’m someone who very easily burns out on things. For example, I just went through a huge surge of reading comics. I still love comic books dearly but I needed to take a break from them for a bit. This happens to me all the time with my interest. I get a surge to completely envelope myself in, say, video games, do that for a month or two and then I need a break. But after watching nearly 25 horror movies I still have a desire to see them. Just maybe not at a daily rate!


I feel like the best way to rank these movies isn’t to put them all up against each other, but rather to separate them into categories (no particular order within the categories).


You’re Next
The Lords of Salem
Rosemary’s Baby
John Carpenter’s Prince of Darkness

Not only are these great horror movies, they’re just great movies in general. The Lords of Salem and Prince of Darkness were especially great. They were both these dark, moody, and creepy movies perfect for the Halloween season.


House on Haunted Hill (1959)
Dracula (1931)
The Innkeepers
The Mummy (1932)
Land of the Dead

Average to me always means that it’s a perfectly fine movie to watch but the good parts and bad parts equally balance each other out. Maybe the good parts give a slight edge to the movie as a whole. They’re not good, not bad, just average.


Evil Dead (2012)
The Serpent and the Rainbow
Maniac (2012)
Ju-On: The Grudge
No One Lives

Some of these movies are just forgettable. Others are actively bad. I’m trying not to contribute to the overly negative dialogue that happens with movies on the internet. All I’ll say is that if given the choice to watch these movies, you might want to skip them.


Silent House
Black Rat

These two movies are a bit frustrating to think about because they both showed so much promise! Especially Silent House. Up until the last 15 minutes I was absolutely convinced that it was this horror masterpiece. Then the ending unraveled all that good will. With Black Rat the movie petered out halfway through. It was less of a sting but they still squandered a really good mash up of genres.


Perhaps I should have done this before the Fear-a-thon Spectral-tacular started so the readers would know what my tastes were. A small oversight. This was the first year after all.

Anyway. Here are five of my favorite horror movies presented in alphabetical order.

Evil Dead 2

Sure, Evil Dead 2 is firmly in the comedy/horror territory, but it’s so chock full of gory fun that it’s hard not to hate. Maybe if you’re a horror purist and can’t accept goofball humor in horror, but come on. Seeing Bruce Campbell laugh maniacally as he chops off his own hand? That’s golden.

Not to mention Sam Raimi’s infectious sense of goofiness. You can’t help but enjoy the ride he presents in this movie.


I’ll admit. The first time I saw Scream I thought it was legitimately scary. Granted, I was maybe 12 or 13 when I first saw it (I was 10 when it was released). But I think that’s the power of Scream. Like You’re Next it perfectly blends horror and humor. It doesn’t hurt that it completely reinvigorated the slasher genre either. I’m really glad Wes Craven was the point man to take the genre in a new direction. I’ll be honest. I almost substituted out Wes Craven’s New Nightmare for this one, but I felt Scream was all around better.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

If I were ranking these five movies this would be at the top of the list. There’s no other movie I can think of that induced such a sense of disgust and fear that I never want to re-watch it. I mean, I’m sure at some point I will but I’m in no rush.

This movie seriously messed me up. And I was probably 17 when I first saw it! I’ll always remember two things. One, when Leatherface clunks the guy on the head with the mallet and the sickening thud that follows. Two, the sense of despair and creepiness when the whole family is sitting around the dinner table.

The Thing

I love this movie. I don’t even remember where or how old I was when I first watched this movie. Its scares have long since dissipated, but it speaks to the power of this movie that it is still watchable. Every time I watch this movie I want the research team to figure out the alien menace quicker and deal with the problem. But every time they fail and succumb to it.

And you can’t forget the ending. It’s such a nihilistic, hopeless ending. What’s great is that neither the characters nor the audience really know if the two humans left are truly human.

You’re Next

When I wrote about You’re Next I said it completely reinvigorated my interest in horror. That still holds true. I check weekly to see if the movie has been given a release date for its Blu Ray. It’s a fantastic movie with great characters, great fun, and great scares. It’s a modern masterpiece.

I think other critics have given a similar sentiment but I can totally see people slowly discovering this movie as its released on home video and it becoming a powerhouse cult hit. To give you an idea of how much I like this movie: I think it’s better than Cabin in the Woods. (Not that the two movies are similar or comparable.)

So that’s it. Will I do a Fear-a-thon next year? I sure hope so! This was a ton of fun. My goal between now and next October is to become even more well versed in the horror genre so I can speak about it in a more complete, in depth manner. Right now I feel a bit like a tourist. I really like horror movies so it shouldn’t be too hard to increase my critical skills in the genre.

Movie Debaters 2013 Fear-a-thon Spectral-tacular! #23: Pumpkinhead

We’re presenting a special series of articles this October on Movie Debaters. Every week day we’ll give you a write up of a movie that evokes fear into the viewer and sends chills down the spine. (Or, just, you know movies in the horror/thriller genre.)

We call it The Movie Debaters 2013 Fear-a-thon Spectral-tacular!

I never knew Stan Winston directed a movie. I mean, it makes sense and everything but I just never knew. It’s too bad the movie largely wastes his talents. Of course the creature effects are superb — that’s a given. The rest of the movie surrounding the monster is what falters.

I feel like the biggest problem with this movie is that it has two narratives. One is the Henriksen’s arc from grieving father to realizing the errors of this ways. The other narrative is the deaths of the teenagers who directly and indirectly cause the death of Henriksen’s son.

Lance Henriksen does a good job as the role of a grieving father driven to resurrect Pumpkinhead for revenge. I also appreciated his character arc where he realizes the errors of revenge and attempts to right his wrongs.

The teenage victims in the movie are largely forgettable. Except for the the one guy who runs over a Henriksen’s kid. He’s so despicable it’s hard to forget. I mean, seriously, this character has a back story where he got in trouble for drinking and driving, the proceeds to drink and drive again which ends up killing a kid.

The two story lines converge in a weird way that deflates any sort of horror in the movie. Once Pumpkinhead is released he dispatches with all but two of the teenagers in the span of like 20 minutes. From that point the two survivors plus a random townie run away from Pumpkinhead while Henriksen tries to stop it.

So yeah, the movie is pretty forgettable. Even the creature design of Pumpkinhead isn’t up to the snuff of Winston’s work on Terminator or Jurassic Park (obviously). Of course Winston’s going to create better work when he has a bigger budget, so why restrict him to a low budget horror movie? I will say this. As a filmmaker, Winston was competent in crafting a visual narrative. Everything on screen was clear and easy to process. He didn’t succumb to any sort of desire to be inventive or wacky with the visuals.

I wish there was one good redeeming value to this movie. I’d gladly promote if it had a really good, groundbreaking creature design or if the on screen deaths were super gruesome. That’s not the case. It’s just a wholly average movie. The only real draw is seeing what Winston was able to do in the director’s chair.


Movie Debaters 2013 Fear-a-thon Spectral-tacular! #22: John Carpenter’s Prince of Darkness

We’re presenting a special series of articles this October on Movie Debaters. Every week day we’ll give you a write up of a movie that evokes fear into the viewer and sends chills down the spine. (Or, just, you know movies in the horror/thriller genre.)

We call it The Movie Debaters 2013 Fear-a-thon Spectral-tacular!

We at Movie Debaters are huge fans of John Carpenter’s work. How can you not be? He’s not called the Master of Horror for nothing. Not only that, but it’s just a great genre filmmaker. Now, I can’t speak on behalf of Josh, but I actually haven’t seen all of Carpenter’s movies. Most, but not all. That’s because I’m so impulsive in what I watch that I don’t have the patience to work my way through all of a given filmmaker’s work. Hell, I haven’t seen all of Stanley Kubrick’s movies yet even though he’s Stanley effing Kubrick.

The point is this is the first time I’ve seen Prince of Darkness. It was amazing.

Continue reading

Movie Debaters 2013 Fear-a-thon Spectral-tacular! #21: Land of the Dead

We’re presenting a special series of articles this October on Movie Debaters. Every week day we’ll give you a write up of a movie that evokes fear into the viewer and sends chills down the spine. (Or, just, you know movies in the horror/thriller genre.)

We call it The Movie Debaters 2013 Fear-a-thon Spectral-tacular!

I’ve always liked the George A. Romero Of the Dead series. In fact, I finally saw Day of the Dead a few weeks ago. (It was great.) I even liked Zach Snyder’s remake of Dawn of the Dead.

When Land of the Dead came out I was kind of skeptical. It had been so long since Romero had made a zombie movie. Would it hold up? Would he still have the magic? Upon its release the movie got pretty middling reviews. Ever since then I’ve kind of ignored it.

Well it turns out my fears were a bit unfounded. The movie is a perfectly average, serviceable zombie movie. It’s got some interesting social commentary that’s not nearly as strong as Dawn of the Dead’s, but it’s still there. I liked that in the movie the zombies and lower class people represent the same side of the economic divide.

The gore and special effects are great and to be expected. I liked the look of the zombies too. Especially the yellow eyes and teeth of the Big Daddy zombie. And the scene where partially decapitated zombie swings his head down onto a soldier’s arm is an instant classic.

One thing I really liked about the movie was that it was a commentary about the dangers of complacency. In the film, the rich folk feel safe and secure. They’ve pretty much gone back to their regular lives of eating dinner in fancy restaurants, wearing suits, being catered to by servants, etc. Once the shit hits the fan — of course it does — they’re completely powerless to stop it.

This is great subject matter for a horror movie. Did you ever notice how in horror series they tend to get less scary and more action oriented as the series progresses? Or maybe instead of staying scary they get funnier and campier? It’s because a basic tenant of horror is the feeling of helplessness. Once the audience and characters become more accustomed to the danger, they have less reason to be surprised by it. If you’re not surprised by it, then it’s not as scary.

So the people in this movie become complacent. They’ve adjusted and learned to sneer at the danger around them. Of course the lower class people and soldiers are still on edge for the danger. They’re still aware of the danger around them.

Real quick: The rest of the movie surrounding these themes is a little generic. Like I said above the movie is perfectly serviceable. It’s not like the movie is a train wreck or anything. The cast does their job, the story moves at a steady pace; it’s just not as groundbreaking as the previous in the series.

I was really glad to see Romero still mostly had the touch with Land of the Dead. I think between this movie and the previous three, they’re perfect studies on how humanity would react to a zombie apocalypse.


Movie Debaters 2013 Fear-a-thon Spectral-tacular! #20: Black Rat

We’re presenting a special series of articles this October on Movie Debaters. Every week day we’ll give you a write up of a movie that evokes fear into the viewer and sends chills down the spine. (Or, just, you know movies in the horror/thriller genre.)

We call it The Movie Debaters 2013 Fear-a-thon Spectral-tacular!

I like watching lesser known, underground movies. It’s not so much a hipster thing like “I am better than you for seeing obscure movies.” It’s because I love championing underground movies and helping to get them more well known.

For the first half of Black Rat I was convinced I found a really awesome movie. Unfortunately, the back half of the movie threw away the good will created by the first half.

Continue reading

Movie Debaters 2013 Fear-a-thon Spectral-tacular! #19: Leviathan

We’re presenting a special series of articles this October on Movie Debaters. Every week day we’ll give you a write up of a movie that evokes fear into the viewer and sends chills down the spine. (Or, just, you know movies in the horror/thriller genre.)

We call it The Movie Debaters 2013 Fear-a-thon Spectral-tacular!

If you want to be uncharitable to Leviathan you can call it a ripoff of Alien and The Thing. “Ripoff” is pretty harsh term in of itself. It’s not like Alien or The Thing have a stranglehold on that type of movie. Other people are allowed to make a movie about a strange monster picking off people one by one while they work in an extreme environment. But on the other hand, Leviathan is about crew members of a mining operation who battle a monster that absorbs the features of a host. Not only that, but the corporation in charge of the mining expedition is less than ethical in their intent.

In other words, Leviathan is a ripoff.

Continue reading

Movie Debaters 2013 Fear-a-thon Spectral-tacular! #18: Hellraiser

We’re presenting a special series of articles this October on Movie Debaters. Every week day we’ll give you a write up of a movie that evokes fear into the viewer and sends chills down the spine. (Or, just, you know movies in the horror/thriller genre.)

We call it The Movie Debaters 2013 Fear-a-thon Spectral-tacular!

You know, I’ve always wondered why I never saw any of the Hellraiser movies. When I was a kid I watched a bunch of the Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Halloween movies super late at night on cable. (Seriously, in the late 90s/early 2000s the USA Network seemed to love showing horror movies at 3am.)

After watching Hellraiser I now know why they were never shown. It’s a sadomasochistic S&M body horror movie. It’s very reminiscent of David Cronenberg’s work. There’s no way it could ever be shown on any form of tv.

Continue reading

Movie Debaters 2013 Fear-a-thon Spectral-tacular! #17: Ju-On: The Grudge

We’re presenting a special series of articles this October on Movie Debaters. Every week day we’ll give you a write up of a movie that evokes fear into the viewer and sends chills down the spine. (Or, just, you know movies in the horror/thriller genre.)

We call it The Movie Debaters 2013 Fear-a-thon Spectral-tacular!

Confession time: Back when Japanese horror films were all the rage, specifically, I mean, when Hollywood was adapting Japanese horror movies, I was just beginning my journey as a film nerd. That’s a long sentence to set up the fact that I shunned the Japanese horror movies just because they were popular at the time. I know. It’s terrible. I’ve always had a bit of a hipster streak in me.

Continue reading