Howdy, folks. Just wanted to drop a quick line. Lots of exciting things are going on. Anticipation of some new horror movies coming out later this year, monster flicks like the new adaption of Stephen King’s IT and the finally being released Dark Tower: The Gunslinger flick. 47 Meters Down looks freaky as hell, mostly because of my fear of deep ocean water and all the many monsters that live there. Wish Upon looks pretty good too, as does God Particle (a hush hush third installment in the growing Cloverfield franchise). There seems to be a ton of horror coming out this year. Not that I’m complaining. Summer is my second favorite season next to fall. Yeah, here in Texas we like to barbecue and we enjoy swimming and drinking a cold one during the summer, but this season of beach balls and camping tents also invites the macabre. October is without a doubt THE season for horror. Its just not the only one.
There is a strong argument that summer is just as nostalgic when it comes to that feeling of fright. One of my favorite slasher franchises is built around the summer. Friday the 13th is ALL about creating terror around the appeal of camping. Which is funny because most of the Friday movies were filmed off-season during the late fall, but still…the image, the idea, the invocation takes us to that seat around the camp fire, listening to tales of dread and misery. Jaws is another blockbuster film that is surrounded by middle-class incantations of summer and then ripping those good-times to shreds. And the list goes on and on.
So, as the clock turns to June 20th lets remember the reason for the season and celebrate by going to the movies to see a new horror flick, or hosting a late night get-together or have yourself a stay-cation and toss in an old VHS copy Friday the 13th part 6. Or Critters 2. Or The Evil Dead. Go ahead, have a blast.
As my way of celebrating the start of Summer Frights, I’ve marked down my latest publication with Shadow Work Publishing. FEAST, which started this Saturday, June 17th, 2017, will be marked down at the low price of $0.99 for the eBook version on Amazon until June 24th, 2017. You can download this gory book directly to your Kindle device or to your FREE Kindle reader app. These apps are available on your smart phone, tablet, or even on your computer.
All proceeds goes to my monthly royalty % which in turn feeds my own horror habits…so you know its for a good cause.
Between the rural Texas towns of Bass and Sat is one of the most popular barbecue restaurants in America. Big Butts Bar-B-Que has been the seat of power for the Fleming family since the Great Depression, but when tragedy and scandal beset Titus and his surviving transgender son Lavinia, deals are made to keep control of the restaurant. An arrangement that will put a father at odds with his legacy. As the table is set, is it just the keys to the barbecue kingdom some are after, or something else entirely?
“Classically Greek, Tremendously Twisted” -The Haunted Reading Room.
“Extreme-ly superb!” -Confessions of a Reviewer.
“I think Shakespeare would’ve enjoyed it” -Lydian Faust.
Don’t wait. Get your copy today.
Often called The Hemingway of Horror, Thomas S. Flowers secludes away to create character-driven stories of dark fiction ranging from Shakespearean gore feasts to paranormal thrillers. Residing in the swamps of Houston, Texas, with his wife and daughter, his debut novel, Reinheit, was soon published with Shadow Work Publishing, along with The Incredible Zilch Von Whitstein, Apocalypse Meow, Lanmò, The Hobbsburg Horror, and FEAST. His military/paranormal thriller series, The Subdue Series, including Dwelling, Emerging, Conceiving, and Converging, are published with Limitless Publishing, LLC. In 2008, he was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army where he served for seven years, with three tours serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. In 2014, Thomas graduated from University of Houston-Clear Lake with a Bachelors in History. He blogs at machinemean[dot]org, where he reviews movies and books and hosts a gambit of guest writers who discuss a wide range of strange yet oddly related topics. You can follow from Thomas at a safe distance by joining his author newsletter at http://goo.gl/2CozdE.
Thanks in part to my indulgence of never being able to get to bed early, I was able to sit down and watch both mini series versions of Salem’s Lot through the course of the week. That’s right. I watched 6 hours of of Salem’s Lot… TOTALLY WORTH IT! I’d seen the 2004 before, but it had been years ago, and I’d seen parts of the 1979 original. As luck would have it, I was able to get my hands on a copy of the original ’79 film. The 2004 one was already in my collection.
It was nice being able to watch these amazing movies once again. First off, before we dig into the meat of the discussion here, lets talk a bit about the source material for these mini series’. Its an important place to start. Salem’s Lot, as for many of you I’m sure, is one of the pillar novels every horror fanatic reads. Even people who don’t like King, read Salem’s Lot. It’s a classic vampire tale told in a very traditional way, even more traditional some would say then Richard Matheson’s I am Legend. In all it’s glory, Salem’s Lot doesn’t have some black ink virus running amok, nor does it glitter in the sunlight, nor are there packs of ravaging monsters with shark teeth. Salem’s Lot is about evil incarnate taking form in a small town that from the outside seems idyllic, but for those who walk its streets and call it home, its nothing idolize.
Here’s a short synopsis of the legendary book:
Author Ben Mears returns to ‘Salem’s Lot to write a book about a house that has haunted him since childhood only to find his isolated hometown infested with vampires. While the vampires claim more victims, Mears convinces a small group of believers to combat the undead.
Cut and dry, and for a lack of a better word, each of the mini series’ captures the jest of what King wrote, though some more than others, I’d say. In in mentioning that, I’m begging my own question, just what are the differences?
Dynamic Verses Literal Translation…
Yup. That’s pretty much what the differences boil down to. The Tobe Hooper directed 1979 made for TV movie mini series was what I’d call a dynamic interpretation of the source material, meaning, the movie is not a word for word literal translation of King’s masterpiece. Tobe took the ideals of the book and made it into his own movie, which was to be frank, creepy as fuck.
Here’s a short synopsis of the 1979 Tobe take:
Ben Mears (David Soul) has returned to his hometown of Salem’s Lot to write a book about the supposedly haunted Marsten House that resides on a hill overlooking the small town. His project is curtailed, however, when he finds out that someone has bought the long-empty property. But when people around the Marsten House start dying mysteriously, Mears discovers that the owner of the mansion is actually a vampire who is turning them into an army of undead slaves.
Was it perfect?
No, what movie is…especially a King adaptation?
Some of the bigger differences from the book to the 1979 movie include a lot of marginalized characters, such as the priest and most of the town, though, you could argue that the town of Jerusalem’s Lot is more imaginative than the 2004 counterpart. Barlow is also a notable difference, Tobe seems to have wanted to go full Nosferatu in terms of the Master. I actually liked this version of Barlow more than in the suave 2004 version. The return of the Glick boys, I think, is also more terrifying in the 1979 take. And if we’re going to be honest, the 1979 movie was more terrifying.
So, what happened with the 2004 version?
Before we movie on, here’s a quick synopsis of the 2004 movie:
Ben Mears, a writer returns to the small Maine town of Jerusalem’s Lot (also known as Salem’s Lot), where he spent the first few years of his life, to write a book. Little does he or the townfolk realize that a couple of other new residents are coming…Straker, an antiques dealer, and his partner and master Barlow, a ancient and malevolent vampire bent on making Salem’s Lot his new home
The 2004 version was directed by Mikael Salomon, not a well known name among horror fans because as far as I know he’s never directed any horror movies, before or after. Salomon’s direction for the 2004 take of Salem’s Lot is what I’d call a literal translation. This mini series is the closest of the two compared to King’s original book. Some of the highlights that I enjoyed from this version involve the actors.
Donald Sutherland played a wonderfully creepy Richard Straker…maybe, to be hair, too over the top. A few other favorites include, James Cromwell as the priest, and Dud Rogers, the hunchback landfill guy who traded his handicap to become not just equals with his peers, but better. I will say this about the Priest character, neither movies got it right. I like the 2004 part slightly better only because I really enjoy seeing Cromwell on screen. What they did to his character though, especially at the end…is the most annoying thing abut the redub. Even though he’s a very minor character in the mini series, I thought it was a wonderful part. And if we were to say anything comparable of the two takes on Salem’s Lot, its the focus on the characters. I thought both films did a marvelous job with that. And in fairness, perhaps the 2004 version actually brought in more of those characters than the 1979 one. The one character I could have done without was Rob Lowe. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but his narrations were buggy.
Overall, I think because of my particular tastes for classic films, my favor is leaning towards the 1979 version. Sometimes a literal translation of a book to film doesn’t always work, in fact, it hardly ever works. Was the 2004 entertaining? Yes. And I think you should at least watch it once. Was it better then the 1979 take? No. The 1979 film took the theme of the book but made it its own movie, giving the atmosphere a more chilling presence then the 2004 counterpart. The 1979 movie really gave me an impression that evil was coming into Salem’s Lot.
1979 = 5/5
2004 = 3/5
Often called The Hemingway of Horror, Thomas S. Flowers strives to create character-driven stories of dark fiction ranging from Shakespearean gore dinner feasts to paranormal war thrillers. Residing in the swamps of Houston, Texas, with his wife and daughter, his debut novel, Reinheit, was soon published with Shadow Work Publishing, along with The Incredible Zilch Von Whitstein, Apocalypse Meow, Lanmò, The Hobbsburg Horror, and FEAST. His military/paranormal thriller series, The Subdue Series, including Dwelling, Emerging, Conceiving, and Converging, are published with Limitless Publishing, LLC. In 2008, he was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army where he served for seven years, with three tours serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. In 2014, Thomas graduated from University of Houston-Clear Lake with a Bachelors in History. He blogs at machinemean[dot]org, where he reviews movies and books and hosts a gambit of guest writers who discuss a wide range of strange yet oddly related topics. You can follow from Thomas at a safe distance by joining his author newsletter at http://goo.gl/2CozdE.
Before we walk through the woods and enter the cabin, I’d like to take a moment and recognize Sam Raimi. Today is his birthday. Born this day in 1959, Sam has held a distinguished career. He’s directed numerous horror pictures adored by many twisted people and non-twisted people alike, worldwide. He’s got a fan base reaching from the dark Necronomicon fueled world of Evil Dead (1981) all the way past Darkman (1990) into the comic book world of Spider-man (which is still considered by many as the best film adaption to date). He’s even directed a little known western called, The Quick and the Dead (1995). He’s dabbled in television, and I’m not just talking about the highly anticipated return of everyone’s favorite chainsaw welding sassy hero in Ash Vs. The Evil Dead (2015), but also the short lived 90s shows, M.A.N.T.I.S and Legend of the Seeker. And he has also produced some amazing and totally underrated horror flicks, including both 30 Days of Night (2007) and The Possession (2012). And this is just a tip of the iceberg. Sam Raimi, in my humble opinion, is an amazing storyteller, not without his faults. His vision has a unique blend of terror and comedy that is often precarious to mix. Many couldn’t quite jive with his return to form with Drag Me to Hell (2009) with its strange formula of laughs and jolts of absolute fear…well, all but the true die hard fans. I actually loved Drag Me to Hell. It was wonderfully sadistic! In celebrating the macabre directors birthday, I thought it was high-time I reviewed his most legendary and longest lasting cult film, The Evil Dead (1981).
Longest lasting cult classic…? What does even mean? More to point, longest lasting, as in a franchise property in which is still being watched, talked about, and continued, to date. Sam’s Spider-man days are over. There are no more westerns. No more trips to hell. No more over the top 90s television action. No more blown apart scientists with one heck of an anger management problem. His one true lasting cult creation, is Ash and those demon bastards in The Evil Dead. I’m sure you’re thinking, “What a sec? Wasn’t there a remake of Evil Dead?” And though this as nothing to do with our discussion, I do have this to say, there was and there wasn’t. Confused? Good!
We can debate this all day long, and I’ve been in a few conversations on social media about this subject, but in my opinion, Evil Dead (2013) was not a remake or reboot. It was simply another “cabin in the woods, kids find Necronomicon” movie. The 2013 misadventure kept to the familiar themes of the original while maintaining its own story arch and more gritty vibe. To me, that spells continuity, the continuation of the “Evil Dead” mythology through a new cast of characters. Hell, it was even rumored (and still is) that Ash will team up with Mia in some future (probably never going to happen) film. How could they team up if Mia’s story was a reboot of the original? They couldn’t, simple enough. Thus, Evil Dead (2013) was not a reboot of The Evil Dead (1981). It would be easier to argue The Evil Dead 2 as a reboot of the first film then it would the 2013 film. Just saying…stop arguing with me!!!
Again…I’m getting really far off topic here. Can we talk about just The Evil Dead (1981) for a moment?
The Evil Dead first released to theaters in October 1981. It was a low budget film with a no name cast of teenaged-twenty-somethings, shot on 16mm film in the woods of Tennessee for around $350,000. Though not the first “cabin in the woods” horror movie, you could probably give that credit to either Equinox (1970) or The Red House (1947), but you could make a strong argument that The Evil Dead solidified “the cabin” as a pop trope in horror stories. The plot is easy to follow. A group of friends head out to a lonely cabin in the woods for a little R&R. The place is dilapidated, albeit cozy. Its a celebration of friendship and perhaps even a little romance, despite the third wheel. But there’s a eerie presence in the cabin. Strange sounds in the cellar. The boys investigate and discover a nasty looking book and a tape recorder, among other things (including a poster of The Hills Have Eyes on the wall). They play the recording and the archaeologist on the tape recites some of the words he’d translated from the Necronomicon. His incantation awakens something dark and demonic in the forest surrounding the cabin. One by one, Ash (Bruce Campbell) watches his friends get possessed. Before daybreak, he must find a way to survive…or meet the same fate as his friends.
The Evil Dead captures, for me, the potential for horror. I’m talking more in film probably then storytelling, though in storytelling itself you cannot find a more perfect and basic trope to work with than the “cabin in the woods.” As for film, though, The Evil Dead demonstrates the power of low-budget horror with a list of no-name actors but over-the-top effects. I guess today we’d call these indie films, or independent to be frank. Horror, in its long life, seems to have thrived better as independent and low-budgeted. Directors and cast members and producers have to rely on cost effective means, focusing on mood and tension, and maximizing production budgets as much as humanly, sanely possible. And when it comes to horror, such as this film, at a glance they’d need to used more of the budget on practical effects than anything else. The effects for me are what count. Good storytelling, that’s a given. But you’re trying to sale me on horror, you gotta bring the practical gore.
Some might say the effects in The Evil Dead look cheesy, and maybe some parts do nowadays. But in my book, given the budget restraints, The Evil Dead looked and still looks amazingly graphic. Shaky steady-cam and all the buckets of blood. A fantastic wonderland of dark imagery and terror and perhaps even a little humor.
The story isn’t complicated and that’s a good thing. It is friendship and love pitted against the fear of the unknown, the evil taking possession of those closest to us. Not every horror story needs to have some complex AHS plot. Add the practical gore with the simple story, and that’ll give you one hell of an entertaining need to watch movie.
My Rating: 5/5