... FOR "HALLOWEEN HORROR PROJECT 2016"

Well, it's Halloween again, folks! That time when we fire up our cauldrons and our jack-o'-lanterns, and line the grocery stores for our Kit Kats and costumes for the kiddos, all in anticipation of everyone's second favorite holiday of the year (or, as we like to call it in the Lundberg home, The Night We Stock Up On Enough Stinking Candy To Last Us Through Easter At Least). It is also the time for movies about ghouls, ghosts, and goblins to flood our cinematic consciousness, and in keeping with tradition here at FTWW, I wanted to do something fun for you guys as a countdown to the big night.

This year, though, I wanted to make it a bit more personal, so instead of offering up a generic list of Horror titles guaranteed to worm their way into everyone's torture chamber at night, I've decided to share 31 (31 - get it?) of the biggest frights of my entire movie-going experience - specific moments from specific films, in order of intensity, which managed to scare the ever-living bejeebus out of me since I first fell in love with movies as a kid.

... IN DEFENSE OF "HORROR MOVIES"

Why do we love Horror movies? What is it about them we find so consistently fascinating? Is it the childlike thrill of the dark? A secret love for things that jump out and go "Boo!"? Or is it something deeper - a catharsis, say, a way of facing our fears head on, only to emerge, two hours later with a silly grin on our faces, into the light? The fact is, most of us like to be scared on one level or another. It's the adrenaline you feel, that thumping in your chest when you're forced to step outside your comfort zone. This is true whether you're jumping from a plane, climbing a rock face, or riding a roller coaster - you get addicted to it, like a drug. Horror films affect us in much the same way.

Even so, Horror movies tend to illicit different reactions from the people watching them. It's hard to feel threatened by Dracula, for instance, if you don't find vampires particularly frightful or menacing. The shark scenes in Jaws may turn your basic aquaphobe to a quivering mess on the floor, but the effect will be decidedly different for anyone who's spent a great deal of time out on the ocean. From the silent Expressionist films of the 20s (The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari, Nosferatu) to Universal's classic monsters of the 30s and 40s (Frankenstein, The Wolf Man) to the slasher flicks of the 70s and 80s (The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Halloween and their countless clones) and finally to the J-Horror and "torture porn" films of the Noughties (Ju-On: The Grudge, Hostel), the genre has been fractured and splintered into so many subcategories that there's practically something for everyone. The question becomes: What kind of Horror fiend are you?

... FOR "HALLOWEEN HORROR PROJECT - 2013"

I'm currently at work on a Horror retrospective for the blog, but it looks like I'm not going to finish on time (that's the thing about self-imposed deadlines - you know how forgiving the boss can be), so I thought I'd run a quick opinion poll for the time being instead...

Yesterday on Facebook, I asked everyone within eye shot what they'd recommend to a friend if they were asked the question: "What movie should I rent for Halloween night?" This could run the gamut from grossest gore film to funniest scare comedy to zaniest zombie flick - anything they found particularly frightening or family-friendly (or both) for the holiday, and why that particular film should be cherished and appreciated by others. The response was about as enthusiastic as I expected, but the thing I always find so interesting is how different types of Horror movies affect different types of people. From The Blair Witch Project to The Exorcist to Psycho to Shaun Of The Dead... what's scary to one person will often have a different effect on someone else, and it was fun to get at the heart of what really scares the pants off of you this time of the season.

... FOR "MONDO MOVIE MADNESS" (OR, "THE MODERN-DAY MOVIE POSTER AS ART")

If you've never been acquainted with the Mondo Gallery in Austin, TX, then you'd do well to acquaint yourself. An offshoot of the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema chain (est. 1997), the Gallery enlists world-class artists to re-create posters for movies old and new - and then sells them (if you can nab 'em) online, at $35 to $100 a pop. (Posters are created as one-offs and sell out fast, via Facebook and Twitter feeds; buyers often re- sell their purchases on eBay, but at three times the original cost.)

Styles range from comic book designs to collages. And each and every one is a knockout - clever re- imaginings of popular (and not-so popular) films, unburdened by studio mandates or movie star egos. For brevity's sake, I've decided to share some of my favorites below, but really, if you consider yourself a serious film buff, or at least have a moment to spare, then it's worth perusing their extensive back catalogue at www.mondoarchive.com. Click on each poster below to make bigger:

... FOR "FRANCHISE FACE-OFFS (PART 15 - 'FRANKENSTEIN' EDITION)"

That flat-topped square head. The electrodes that stick out on the sides of his neck like the positive/negative terminals on a car battery. Those tromping, stomping platform boots. At one glance, the monster of James Whale's moody, melancholy Frankenstein (1931) will be instantly recognizable among horror movie aficionados, film history buffs, and to anyone even vaguely aware of the existence of movies. The makeup design by Jack Pierce has become so iconic (it is currently under copyright by Universal Pictures until 2026), and Boris Karloff's performance as the woe begotten creature so definitive, it hardly matters that the character bears little resemblance to Mary Shelley's original novel.

Conjured up by 18-year-old Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin during the summer of 1816 (on a dare from George Gordon Byron and future husband Percy Shelley), Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, tells the story of Victor Frankenstein, a scientist whose experiments with human tissue result in a living, breathing monstrosity (which he promptly denounces). In the book, Frankenstein's creation is limber, literate and capable of intelligent speech; he exacts a horrific, painstaking revenge. This will no doubt come as a shock to anyone who grew up on a steady diet of Franken Berries, Abbott and Costello, or the "Monster Mash," in which the monster is depicted as lumbering, dim-witted and/or mute. (To be fair, the 1931 film is based on play adaptation by Peggy Webling, rather than the novel itself. Victor's name is changed to Henry, and the creature is named after its master, though it does retain the ability to speak.) Whale's version still managed to horrify audiences, with its unflinching sequences of grave robbery and murder.

... FOR "FRANCHISE FACE-OFFS (PART 9 - 'PARANORMAL ACTIVITY' EDITION)"

So The Blair Witch Project made close to a gazillion dollars back in 1999, and suddenly, "found footage" copycats were everywhere. Noroi, Diary Of The Dead, [REC], Cloverfield - everyone wanted a piece of the action. The reasons for this were fairly cut and dry: they were cheap, they were easy to shoot, you could cast relatively unknown actors as your leads and no one would raise a fuss, and better yet, audiences seemed to get a kick out of them, so you had the luxury of making loads of money off of very little. Hollywood, as we've made it abundantly clear, is always looking to replicate its own successes.

Granted, Blair Witch was hardly the first "found footage" feature ever made. The Last Broadcast, about a cable-TV crew on the hunt for the mythical Jersey Devil, was released just one year previous, and might have been a direct influence on Blair Witch directors Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez when creating their movie. And perhaps the most notorious of these, Ruggero Deodato's Cannibal Holocaust (1980), was banned in several countries for its graphic depiction of tribal rituals in the Amazon Basin (Deodato was later brought up on murder charges by the Italian government, who believed he'd made an actual "snuff film").

What The Blair Witch got absolutely right, which its predecessors only hinted at, was the way it tickled our deepest, darkest fantasies - and invaded our pop culture consciousness. First came the legendary marketing campaign, which started on the Internet and then quietly gathered word of mouth at the Sundance Film Festival and in various college towns; a Sci-Fi Channel TV special, which aired just prior to the film's release; and finally, a limited-screen engagement that became the see-it-or-be-square event of the decade. Then came the movie itself, sold as the real thing, so you felt like an active part of the film's mythology. It was a con, a hoax, and audiences ate it up, hook, line and sinker.

... FOR "THE BEST FILMS OF THE DECADE" - PART 8

Genre:

HORROR

Defined:

Slasher pics. Zombie flicks. Dismemberment, monsters and murder. The Horror film has evolved since the days of early cinema, when genre pics kept their horrors mostly off-screen. Now, though, filmmakers leave very little to the imagination, as if the simple act of scaring us just isn't enough. 2000-2009 saw the return of the "splatter film" in significant numbers, with prolonged sequences of torture, mutilation, and gore. While titles like Hostel and Saw dominated multiplexes, other trends included remakes of American classics (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween), remakes of Asian Horror flicks (The Ring, The Grudge), and "found footage" films (Cloverfield, Paranormal Activity). There was, in short, no shortage of frights this decade.

The Top Five:

5. Shaun Of The Dead (Edgar Wright, 2004)

Just when you thought zombie movies couldn't get any funnier. Part end-of-the-world scenario, part Romantic Comedy (billed, in fact, as the world's first "zom rom com"), Edgar Wright's side-splitting Horror-Comedy is a mishmash of so many genres it's hard to guess what'll come at you next. Wright co- scripted with star Simon Pegg, based off an idea from their British slacker sitcom Spaced, about an aimless appliance salesman who's settled into such a routine – hanging out with his ne'er-do-well flatmate at the local pub, and generally disappointing his girlfriend – that it literally takes scores of the undead to shake him from his stupor. This mix of shrieks and laughter has been done before, of course (George A. Romero's Dawn Of The Dead springs immediately to mind, as does Sam Raimi's Evil Dead series) – but never quite at this pitch. One minute the dry British wit floors you with its typical indifference, the next someone's getting ripped to pieces during zombie attacks. For anyone with the stomach for it, Shaun's a real hoot.

... FOR "REMAKES AND REHASHES (HALLOWEEN EDITION)"

Ah, Hollywood. When will you ever learn? We've talked about remakes before, but when it comes to Horror movies, it's the producers, writers and directors who come off as more than a little brain- dead. The purpose of these remakes, rehashings and re-imaginings always seems the same: take a title that terrified audiences back in the day and... add more gore! And nudity! Because that kind of stuff always improves things! Ugh. It's all a matter of taste, I guess. And a stronger gag reflex than I apparently have.

Here are five Horror titles that received some of the more memorable "upgrades" in recent memory. Enter at your own risk...

... FOR "FRANCHISE FACE-OFFS (PART 2 - 'HALLOWEEN' EDITION)"

The problem with a movie like Halloween – along with, say, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Jaws, even Poltergeist – is that the law of diminishing returns tends to corrupt the filmmakers' original intentions. Too often sequels are rushed into production as an excuse to cash in on a title's good name; horror sequels, in particular, generally offer the same scares, the same chills, nothing more – only gorier, at a higher pitch than before.

Released in 1978, and made on a budget of $325,000, John Carpenter's Halloween is the granddaddy of all slasher pics – more than Chain Saw (1973) or Psycho (1960), movies not yet in the Butchered-Horny-Teenagers mold. Written by Carpenter and producer Debra Hill, the story couldn't be simpler: maniac escapes from asylum, stalks victims. Yet the movie's atmospheric scares galvanized audiences hungry for just such a thing. Its reputation built slowly, word of mouth eventually helping to bring its final worldwide box office tally to around $55 million (or $172 million, adjusted for inflation). While hardly what you'd call a blockbuster success by today's standards, this was fairly staggering stuff for a late-70s, low-budget shocker – enough to spawn countless rip-offs and seven (count 'em) sequels, a reboot, and a sequel to the reboot.

... FOR "QUIZ TIME, PART 3 (HALLOWEEN EDITION)"

I should have gotten on top of this last week, but since it's October, how about an entire month of blog entries devoted to Halloween and scary movies? It'll help us get into the spirit of things, so that those of us with kids can get excited for the end of the month, when our little tykes go trick or treating on the 31st and we end up eating half of the candy they collect and get fat. (Or, if you do your own trick-or-treating, eat all of your own candy and get fat.)

I figure, since we've just started a couple of new series, we might as well have a little fun with that. Looking ahead, it'll also push me to finish the latest entry in my "Best Of The Decade" – which coincidentally covers my favorite horror movies of 2000-2009 – by Halloween night. (You might think I planned it to work out that way, but truth be told it's just my knack for procrastinating that got the better of me. Hooray for happenstance!) I'm not promising anything, but we'll see how that turns out.

... FOR "REMAKES AND REHASHES"

We finally got around to catching the remake of The Karate Kid this week, starring Jaden Smith (son of Will) and Jackie Chan. I was pleasantly surprised by it. The initial story beats are more or less the same, with alterations - some major (mainland China stands in for a substantially less exotic Los Angeles), some minor (here "Mr. Miyagi" becomes "Mr. Han," "Daniel LaRusso" becomes "Dre Parker" and so forth). Then, at some point, this updated Kid takes on a life all its own, and for a good while, the "re-imagining" seems warranted. It helps, for one thing, that the karate's improved; the choreography as featured in the 1984 movie always seemed a little too stagy for my taste, even if it got the point across. For another, Chan's given a little more room to play - I liked how the tragedy in his past closed him off from communication with the rest of the world, and how his time spent with the kid helps bring him out of his shell. The only thing lacking is the tournament climax, which is treated more like an afterthought to all the drama that precedes it (again, it reverts to the exact same beats as the original, and lacks surprise). All in all, though, I'd say it's an improvement on the original.

Which, of course, got me to thinking: What about the cinema's other high-profile remakes? Usually when filmmakers get it in their heads to put a new "spin" on some beloved property, the results are never pretty. Either they miss the point of the earlier film completely, or they flat-out fail to bring any new ideas to the table, and who wants that? I like my originals exactly the way they are, thank you very much.