Good Grief, Can They Please Write About Something Else?

Howdy, Psycho-Schradists. Part of the reason for starting Funeralopolis was to express my dissatisfaction with the state of modern horror. My disappointment in its direction since those Blumhouse bastards changed the entire model and who they're oriented at after the success of Insidious. The meddling of studio polished watered down nonsense, which serves no purpose other than bland entertainment and can't even deliver us our basic twisted transgressive kicks. Also, the alternative to this, A24, which started off so strongly has wielded some weaker results lately in their strive for weird for weirds sake with notably less than weird results. Unlike the Blumhouse bastards, I'm sure those fellas can get it back on track and achieve greater consistency on their outings. Believing that simply moaning can be a meaningless exercise, where possible I have tried to suggest ways in which these newer movies should go and to try to recommend older classics to combat societies relentless rejection of anything older than 20 years. How to maintain what you could call the exploitation ethos whilst adapting to a new audience. Fundamentally, something I believed that senior critics were not writing about enough and they were readily accepting shit you wouldn't even serve your dog for dinner that gets released today in vast quantities.

Now, over the last few months since this rag tag magazine first began hitting the streets, I have been so shocked and moved to find that I am not alone in sharing these opinions and there have been those wanting someone to come out and address this utter shitshow that has been avoided for too long. As well as this, there have been those who may not have originally agreed or been aware of the drawbacks of horror in its current form as it is presented today but have revisited the older films I have suggested and come round to supporting the idea that things have certainly changed around here and not for the best. My Psycho-Schradists for too long have we suffered in silence. Under the impression we are slowly going insane amongst all this safe choir preaching yellow bellied bullshit.

I write for the sleazeballs, the maniacs and the thrill seekers. For the kind of people living in a dream, who horde outside the Disney shops on 42nd Street that were once grindhouses like zombies in Dawn of the Dead. Seemingly little or no reasoning power, but basic skills remain and more remembered behaviour from normal life. Wondering amidst all the aids, drugs and prostitution, where did it all go wrong? I write for people who pass their time by throwing darts at pictures of Rudy Guiliani, thinking with every blow at the board, one day I'm gonna really get that bastard for destroying our home. For those who feel this way, welcome to the home of Funeralopolis. Where all things sleazy are just a shout away.

Respected readers, the overwhelming response means that I will not give up on this area and will continue to focus my attention to this particular problem. Therefore, my aim will be to keep identifying that which I believe needs improving and refrain from repeating myself where possible. Rob Savages newest film, The Boogeyman, presents several flaws that have become all too common as of late and will be perfect to discuss as examples of shit I'm sick of seeing.

Those who have kept up with Rob Savage will know he's something of a fraud. He achieved fame after his 2020 pandemic techno horror Host. Not to be confused with the phenomenal creature feature from Bong Joon Ho or the crappy young adult Sci-fi misstep from Andrew Niccol that came during that wave of films like Twilight, Maze Runner and Hunger Games. Mr Savage's Host has to be one of the most overrated horror films of the last few years. You will see it ranked highly in all sorts of found footage and techno horror lists. Critics will often describe it as a refreshing take on what has become a well-worn genre. On paper, it is the perfect contribution to found footage that came at just the right time. The film itself? Bang stinking average.

After setting up some zeitgeist scares with the isolated zoom calls, it quickly descends in to the familiar and becomes just another regular addition to the genre complete with your usual boring and loud scenes of household items clattering in to walls with little suspense. It reminds of what Hitchcock said once that if a bomb happens to go off that's shock, if you know a bombs going to go off that's suspense. So basically, if you make the audience aware of something characters may not be aware of that creates tension. Whereas, if the unexpected happens it is less interesting. The suspense requiring a lot more skills as you have to maintain the viewer. In contrast, shock can have its place but it can also be a lot cheaper. Hence, why those types of possession movies got old quick.

Sadly, the majority of possession/demon/found footage movies today rely on shock over suspense. Essentially, resorting to slamming items against walls at high volumes to get you to react in a lazy and unearned manner. I'm looking at you The Conjuring. You'd have to go back to the '70s for that brooding slow burning atmosphere. The writing is so weak on these newer entries so it has to rely on set pieces and doesn't help either cause these directors aren't exactly David Beckham if you know what I mean. As I said, Host starts above this level with a relevant edge through the writing adding in the fears of the time but still becomes household items thrown about the gaff. Anything that could have been interesting is quickly lost. Of all the horrors that dared to, and even succeeded against all odds, in finishing the production stage and commenting on the conditions under which they were manufactured, Ben Wheatley's In The Earth would have my pick for the best. Not that we're spoilt for choice.

Savage then quickly bounced back with Dashcam in 2021 to capitalise on his new found fame. This I haven't seen but it appears to be another of these like Deadstream using social media as an excuse to go Gonzo. Something which in concept is very much fair game to explore and appeals to us at Funeralopolis but all too often comes off achingly modern and failing to say anything of worth. Instead of satirising internet trends they are just as ugly and hollow.

Most of those that have seen Dashcam criticise its run time and point out how the beauty of the VHS films is the anthology structure allowing for stories like these not to run out of steam. To me, that sounds like another undeveloped concept from Savage and we're in agreement this time. Thank fuck. I count two misses. Meaning most likely he did not improve his talents on his second attempt. Don't forget that when this came out Vue dropped it from their screening schedule. Savage, who if anything is always fast on the draw, was quick to use this to market the film by positioning it as so controversial the cinema won't even show it. Before you suck him off just yet, Vue hilariously then came out and said it was nothing to do with it being offensive but because they thought it was so bad no-one would want to see it. Now that's Savage.

Despite Dashcam appearing interestingly lo-fi, it is actually a Blumhouse production. The same cannot be said about his third feature, The Boogeyman Everything about the trailer screamed Blumhouse with its commercialised and ill-conceived slick production values, terrible writing and bland scares. My initial reaction to it was bursting out in laughter at every moment. It was so on point Blumhouse. Somehow it continues to be popular. I recall someone at the back of the cinema when the trailer aired going, "that looks scary!". Did we just watch the same thing? That was all I could think. How does one be scared by having such little context to go off and whatever information it does gives you you've seen hundreds of times over? Genuine question.

How are the vast majority of film goers terrified so easily? There's nothing amusingly transgressive at play to catch you off guard. Ok, generally speaking the odd decent set piece in an empty horror can be a little intense but unless it's Hitchcock or De Palma level you'll probably forget it in a week. What's actually scary is good writing, which is disappearing from this arena all too rapidly. I confess, I've not been truly terrified by a horror movie since 2008s Lake Mungo. That remains one of the most immaculate pieces of horror as a concept since The Blair Witch Project .

Personally, what puts me firmly on edge is when you challenge my beliefs or principles. I'm here to be told I'm wrong and everything I've been led to believe is in fact, untrue. Whether it be scientific theory, political ideology or philosophical questions. All the basic supports I lean on, that I have tied myself to are fucking nonsense and I have no bearings in these world, nothing solid to grip on to. It's all random, meaningless and unexplainable. There is only the void. Exactly what Lake Mungo did. It proposed the idea that the medium I love (film) is something to be feared. A dangerous entity we still do not fully understand. Similar to Blair Witch, which took my beloved setting of the woods (something I always associated with positively as growing up I always lived in houses that backed on to the woods) and turned it in to this vacuum where time doesn't operate normally. Both push the boundaries of technology in film that goes beyond mere classification as horror, becoming essential for any film fan wanting to see the progression of the medium. They border in to the existential. If you haven't seen Lake Mungos finale, I won't ruin it but it's ideas may seem familiar as I'm always stealing from it whenever I can.

For those less interested in Lake Mungo's relationship between cinema and death, the grief and family trauma aspect is undeniably alluring. They use unknown actors and most have them have never worked again adding to the authenticity of the project. However, this is a theme now so regularly used like clockwork it is beginning to bore. It seems like that's all writers can think to write about and nearly every horror coming out to today features a grieving teenager or widow. The pain of losing a loved one. Have they forgotten there are other things that can be written about? Are our times so uninteresting and empty that all we can do is focus on something so generic as grief? Making no attempt to address the specific problems of a particular decade is a one way ticket to irrelevancy. Why are we not riffing on the darker aspects of our culture? Vietnam, Hiroshima, Iraq... Touching these topics, wasn't it this that always made horror so gripping? A place where you could go for this conversation when no other genres would open their doors? Horror, the place you go when nothing else works. But where do you go when horror stops working? Jacob Kelly's Funeralopolis that's fucking where.

Generally, we need to think bigger beyond individual trauma and back in to national trauma. That's the collective nightmare. Horror filmmakers should constantly be thinking what is that and how do we define that? Has it changed to some degree and if so what changed it? This is where my love of creature features comes in to play. The subversive act of hiding cold wars inside ridiculously entertaining big dumb monster movies. True cinematic spectacle. Over time these have completely changed in the fears that they address. Look at Them! And Cloverfield, united by their monsters but two very different monsters. One covering the bomb and the other turning to 9/11. To be clear, I'm not all tapped out on the theme even at such a narrow and individual level. I'm just mainly bored by the repetitive routine of it, it's easiness as a go to and the lack of new ground covered every time it's used.

The other day I was thinking who is the go to director these days for young film enthusiasts first getting in to the game? For my generation, the answer was obvious, ask pretty much anyone and they'll probably agree it was Paul Thomas Anderson. He dominated the 2000s and 2010s by so perfectly maintaining this challenging arthouse but still commercial hybrid. When people my age were first navigating the terrain, There Will Be Blood had only been out a few years and already it seemed destined to be a classic of the 21st century along with Mulholland Drive and In the Mood for Love. Paul Thomas Anderson then continued with a steady stream of hits and just hasn't really missed.

Right, so my guys had Paul. Who do the kids have now as the artsy but still able to win the biggest crowds?

Challenging without being off putting. Marvel doesn't really make directors. So that's them off the table. Films like Everything Everywhere at Once is not really an alternative, it's still Marvelised rubbish. Horrors increased in popularity out of nowhere. Therefore, I guess you have to go for someone from A24, which is also a little irritating because that’s a production company or even to some extent arguably a genre in itself. Is auterism dying out as we know it?

Regardless, there have been a few auteurs who have emerged from there such as the Safdie Brothers and Ari Aster. 3

For now, we shall just address Ari Aster. Midsommar is literally the most popular horror film on Letterboxd, even topping Jordan Peele's Get Out. There's another name some may throw back at me but if honest is becoming increasingly disappointing and could well be a fraud. Get Out was near perfect conceptually and for the first half the satire is on point but the sloppier second half that sinks in to the generic (even if it is fun) is often ignored. I forgave this as it was his debut and assumed he would grow on that. He hasn't. Everything released since has got worse and worse. Blows my mind that some were trying to call him the best horror film director of all time. Excuse me? Let's go over this. Get Out gets points for the relevance to our times but his last two have been way off the mark. So, all told he has one great film to his name, that doesn't warrant him best of all time status now, does it?

Back to Ari Aster, I have often wondered myself whether we've overhyped this guy too as the face of contemporary horror. Was it one of those trains we boarded too soon and then found we couldn't get off? If he was releasing at any other time he'd be nowhere near as successful. His success can be accounted to the fact he's got very little to compete with. He steals heavily from other superior films from the past such as The Exorcist and The Wicker Man and then injects his own dumb gross out stoner humour as though still trying to impress his film student friends. That's his M.O. His critics have tried to discredit him as being uncaringly cruel towards his characters, focusing too much on their pain. Whilst I think to some extent this could be true, how do you explain the blatant humour in his work? It's not all doom and gloom. Maybe these people take him too seriously.

Anyway, one theme that regularly crops up in his work is this frequently used theme of grief and family trauma. Where've we seen that one before?

Watching bottom of the barrel garbage like Rob Savage's The Boogeyman week in week out, has only made me appreciate Ari Aster more. A good artist subverts his material and takes you beyond it in to their mind. Precisely what makes Ari Asters Ouvre so damn memorable. He's the one speck of gold under layers and layers of shit.

Whereas Blumhouse and other big studio horrors are so content with merely recycling and regurgitating, Aster genuinely has something to say on the subject. With each film he unapologetically takes you through his perversions in ways you're simply not going to get from these watered down studio horrors. He is by far the most revealing and has established himself as cinemas greatest auteur with mummy issues since David Chase. Not seen a man battle with his own mother in his work like this since Eminem. Mrs Aster or Bobbi Lurie as she goes as, must be some lady. Wherever she may be, Funeralopolis would like a word with her. We'd like to offer her a full interview and see what she has to say on the subject. Maybe she can argue her case and challenge this public image of her brought about by her naughty son. What a menace that Ari Aster is, who else has brought such a personal and comical touch to the proceedings? In the current climate, that is what makes Ari Aster: good.

Aster's antics combat the familiar Ztier trite that I have to put with on a weekly basis like The fucking Boogeyman. So next time you tell me Ari Aster is no good, try sitting through this shit every fucking Friday. Midsommar, Hereditary, Beau is Afraid , these are blessing. His offerings are more of an event. The antidote to the uninspired. I've said this multiple times but the overwriting common today stops the Blumhouse/studio model from being horror to me. Instead, they should be referred to as dull dramas. Aster puts the horror back in there going a different route with the comedy (what originally made Jordan Peele a force to be reckoned with). Blumhouse films are so serious and one note that they do nothing with the material. It is entirely predictable and comes at you with the same dose at the same time every week like fucking Whac-A-Mole.

Returning to The Boogeyman, because I'm aware this film has rattled me so badly I've done my best not to speak about it, Savage has leaned on Stephen King. Weaker King by any sane man's definition, made for students, hence why it's one of those 'Dollar Babies'. What the fuck is a guy with a 35 million budget turning to those for any way? Save it for the students, you fucking freak!

In fact, The Boogeyman was originally one of the first Dollar Babies, when King and Darabont initially discussed the concept together back in 1982, resulting in the Night Shift Collection half hour TV movies. There will be those that say this remake is way better than the cheap and amateurish version we got from Jeff Schiro back in the '80s (not a clue who this geezer is by the way, if anyone has any information on him please send it my way). They'll quote the greater talent involved from the cast and better production values. Allow me to counter, the trashy original was way better. For starters, it's only 28 minutes long compared with the latest ones excruciating 99 minutes. Whilst, the old one is by no means conventionally good, it goes the other way and begins working in its favour by being so sloppy.

It looks like it's been shot by a maniac with next to no knowledge of filmmaking, using only late night Xrated entertainment from a porno house for reference and its main actor so sleazy looking he could be a frequenter of those types of establishments that are now all but extinct. It is near impossible to get a grip on the thing due to the short running time causing it not to follow the usual beats, adding to how unsettling it all is. Nearly everything about it is so unpredictable, sweaty and deranged that it works better as a piece of horror than Rob Savage could ever have imagined. I'll take that over the new ones bland appearance.

My theory on adapting expert horror novelist Stephen King is that you have to pinpoint the good, be brave enough to disregard the bad and try to latch your own meanings on to the intoxicating imagery. You could say this about any adapting but the difference with the King is that he literally spells it out to you what's good, what's shit and what's yours for the taking. Making him probably the greatest person to adapt because his books are so fun, flawed, cinematic and ripe with ideas to merge with your own. Savage, being the coward that he is, doesn't do any of these things. If there's one thing I hate in cinema it’s a coward. Take away his cinema card and put this man in jail for sheer gutlessness.

In his interviews, he has spoken about, "reclaiming the monster under the bed" How fucking juvenile. I think we all got over that when we were 10, mate. Imagine you're in the boozer, you haven't kept up to date with your horror for whatever reason. You've been too busy with work and other nonsense, so you ask, "Right, what's happening in horror right now?". Then someone tells you, "oh, there's this new guy called Rob Savage". So naturally after clearing up it's not the former Welsh football player with a hard on for yellow cards, you add, "ah cool, what's he about then?". And the other person answers, "Oh, he's reclaiming the monster under the bed". Terrible. Terrible. Terrible.

I'd sleep easier at night if I knew Rob Savage's hands would never touch a camera again. Chop those fuckers off and lash them in the pile with Ryan Goslings arms in Only God Forgives . Fair enough if you were to take the monster under the bed and you tie it in to contemporary culture. What this ghost represents is something powerful and is an abstract image of what currently scares us in society. That would be fine. That's how any good film works. This is precisely what Savage was trying to do with Host, albeit doing a half arsed job and giving up part way through. When it comes to The Boogeyman, he's hardly getting out from under the bed. There's no subversion. No attempt to leap frog in to something else.

Yes I'm aware there is some pathetic attempt to align The Boogeyman with our favourite fucking theme of grief but it's still just complete and utter nothingness. Surely it's lost all impact and meaning at this point? Why've we picked grief anyway? What bearing does that have right now? None whatsoever, it's just a generic go to. If anything it's the opposite with increasing our life expectancy causing unexpected consequences with diseases such as Alzheimer's. I hate to break it to you, lads, Our relatives aren't dying, they're doing too much living. Consequently, we should be getting more projects like Gaspar Noe's Vortex if anything.

While I'm at it, on this whole reclaiming the monster under the bed malarkey, why does it seem like the age films are geared at is dropping by the day? When they say horror and films in general peaked during the '70s it's because they actually wrote to a much more adult oriented audience and had models in place that promoted talented unique filmmakers. Back in the days when the Yanks fell behind to European arthouse cinema so had to fight back out of pride not just financially. That was the main goal of cinema if only for a short time. As opposed to having films like The Boogeyman featuring 15 year old characters and geared at 15 year old audiences. I'm all for silly childish movies and whole heartedly approve of your campy Saturday matinee aimed at the children but this in between stage is just awful. So serious and yet so uninteresting. All for dumbing down but at least put some humour in otherwise you end up pumping out such tedious bollocks as this. The '50s saw the rise of the teenager and those movies are hilarious. Those worked just fine.

Part of me wants to say step out of this and don't comment on entertainment which doesn't have your name on it and you're not the target audience. You're never going to win. It's theirs and they should have it. Frustration creeps in though when everything becomes tailored to a single audience like this and there's no alternative. It be like having loads of Alex Riders and no Jason Bournes. Except this is a terrible comparison because Stormbreaker has a shit load of camp to offer, whereas these 15 year old centred horror movies are extremely self-serious snoozefests. To be more horror appropriate, I want to say too many Twilights and not enough Draculas. But once again, there's camp! We need to have a serious chat about wiping these self-serious snoozefests off the map. If you're limited by how much you can say because of the mental capacity of your viewer then dumb that shit down and let's have a few laughs. No point just making a bad and restricted version that wants to be intelligent but can't be for fear of losing their particular audience. If you can't be smart, be stupid. And take pride in it. You may find more creative avenues by taking this route.

Plus, we should definitely be getting more adult oriented horror than we are. My logic behind this is that if you aim at older people, those older will like it and those younger will probably like it when they're older so it's open to more people with time. We're not fucking Benjamin Button! No chance though that the studio are thinking that way in terms of a growing appreciation. It's just get the product out there as quickly as possible to the age group most likely to go to the cinema. All instantaneous profits, no sustainability. The first week is all that matters now. Nothing grows.

Once again, going back to Ari Aster, considering the above as the basis for releases, this only makes something like Beau is Afraid more exciting, regardless of good or bad because of its risk. A 3 hour long comedy with zero guarantee of getting the profits back. Had any of these studios any sense they'd hire a nuts and bolts director who knows how to shoot fight scenes, establish an action star well versed in martial arts, make vehicles for them that bring in the big bucks and then blow a good proportion of that on some nutcase auteurs that most likely will not return profits but you do it cause it's good. This is how you fund quality under capitalism. By having on one side the guaranteed money maker and on the other side the allotted amount that you can then safely lose. Studios see auteurs as a risk, under this system it is not the same kind of risk. It is calculated risk.

Before even laying eyes on Beau is Afraid, the risk free anti-auterist approach generally handled by studios nearly makes it good already, which is a shocking reflection of the way films have gone. Praising a film for arriving to us in an altered and unpredictable form without any consideration for profits. But hey, this is it. This is what we've chosen. We have only ourselves to blame. I can say I've seen it and it is brilliant with plenty of wide ranging influences across the board even outside horror as we witness Ari Aster rubbing shoulders with all sorts of surrealists. No, I will not review it. Ever. Too much of a Freudian nightmare directed right at cock bearers. Those with cunts between their legs will either not get it at all or laugh hysterically at their pathetic male counterparts.

The scene with the ladder in to the attic freaked me out on a whole other level that I don't wish to discuss. Gave me the shivers. Don't care if this becomes a recurring thing, no amount of requests is gonna make me review Beau is Afraid. So don't you dare. Some things are just too heavy. Just know I thought it was really good and dross like The Boogeyman is only going to make a bigger converter to that nerdy looking chap Ari Aster. If grief and trauma is staying on the menu for the foreseeable future, then I'm only being served by Ari Aster until further notice.

Director: Rob Savage

Screenplay: Stephen King, Mark Heyman, Scott Beck, Bryan Woods

Starring: Sophie Thatcher, Vivien Lyra Blair, Chris Messina, David Dastmlachian

Cinematography: Eli Born

Music: Patrick Jonsson

Production company: 20th Century Studios

Distribution: 20th Century Studios

Country: USA

Run Time: 99 Mins

Budget: $35 Million

Plot Synopsis: Following the tragic death of her mother, two grieving children find themselves to be the next target of a monster lurking under the bed.

Bonus Points: -Somehow making the amateurish original look like Citizen Kane

Overall Score: 1/5