ENTERTAINMENT• FRIDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2008 • PAGE B3
Spectacular Scares
Forget the recent Halloween releases, HiLite reporter Lauren Mugavin brings you the top 5 classic movies to scare you silly
THEEXORCIST.WARNERBROS.COM / PHOTOS
1. ‘THE EXORCIST’
2. ‘THE SIXTH SENSE’
At first I had no idea why everyone was making such a big deal about this movie about a girl named Regan MacNeil who is possessed by a demon…until I saw it. It had an incredibly intense effect that both surprised and scared me. Considering it was made in the ‘70s, it is extremely dark and evil–in an entertaining way, of course. The stair scene was delightfully disturbing, something that’s sure to leave an imprint in my mind for a while. Regan was entrancing as the little girl possessed and as the normal, happy girl. The entire time she is possessed, you aren’t even aware that it’s a little girl, only that it’s a demon in a deceiving form. Some of the events that occur from the time the demon enters are shocking and horrifying, tearing the viewer between the desire for more and the desire to cover their eyes. I love the whole trek through trying to discover the truth behind the little girl’s “personality disorder” until they realize they don’t need a doctor, but an exorcist.
This horror/suspense movie by M. Night Shyamalan rules. The story is about a young boy who is cursed with the ability to see the dead and is helped by a child psychologist. Everything about the plot and story line is brilliant. The actors are perfect for the parts they played. Bruce Willis allowed me to sympathize with the struggling child psychologist, Malcolm Crowe, who was willing to sacrifice everything just to help young children. My heart reached out to young Cole Sear (Haley Joel Osment) the moment he came into the scene. It was so obvious that this adorable boy was an innocent, tormented soul who just wanted to “make them go away” so that he could be a normal kid with real friends and problems like, “What am I taking to lunch today?” instead of “What am I going to do about that bloodied dead guy standing next to me?” The real horror in the movie are from the ghosts Sear is cursed to see. They are battered up enough to at least make viewers cringe. It’s not a constant horror fest with scene after scene of senselessly bloodied bodies that are just meant to get a reaction out of the viewers. It has a real storyline that reels viewers in and conjures up emotion.
3. ‘PSYCHO’ This 1960’s movie is about a violent murder and the mystery of who committed it. It is definitely a classic. It proved that Alfred Hitchcock was thinking way ahead of his time. Because it is a slow-paced movie that moves gradually from one conflict to the next, it gives viewers a bunch of time to figure the character out. The infamous suspense music adds anxiety for something to happen, and eventually audiences are blown away when they reach the famous scene, the moment of suspense, the part that everyone has been talking about: the shower scene. The shower scene is the essential item that makes this a horror movie, and everything surrounding it is just adding to the movie’s mood. Plus, the ending is completely shocking. You almost have to laugh at how sick or “psycho” it really is.
PSYCHOMOVIE.COM / PHOTO
4. ‘NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET’ A breakthrough for its time, this movie scores the top five of my list for its pure uniqueness. The fact that Freddy kills teenagers in their sleep was new and intense. He is the perfect horror image, with his burned and torn face and his knife-claws. The theme music to the movie is a suspenseful mix between the “Phantom of the Opera” and the “Exor cist”, promoting the scary movie mood. Aside from the hor r or, it was also J o h n n y Depp’s first emergence in NIGHTMAREONELMthe film world, STREET.COM / PHOTO which may have started his successful career. He gave a great performance as Glen Lantz, a lazy but supportive jock boyfriend to tormented Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp). She added to the movie with her extensively dramatic portrayal of a frightened teenager, haunted by a creature she can’t get away from. Together, they strive to stay awake in order to avoid Freddy, which is an adventure in itself.
5. ‘INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE’ This movie explores different aspects of being a vampire, making audiences r ealize things about the demons that you would never suspect. The characters are bloodthirsty killers. Still, you cannot help falling in love with them and eventually thinking, “God, I wish I were a vampire.” You would never have thought that one man’s transformation into an immortal being would be so interesting, but yet, his story is both sympathetic and wondrous. If you thought Brad Pitt was gorgeous as a human, you clearly have not seen him as Louis the vampire. His creamy and pale skin along with his perfectly proportioned features make you wonder why Lestat (Tom Cruise) is getting all the girls (although Cruise is equally enchanting). Just when you think it cannot get any better, in swoops Kirsten Dunst as the stubborn Claudia who completely changes up the engaging storyline. The horror in the film mainly comes from the different kinds of vampires, their non-romantic, but binding relationships, and most importantly, the way they enchant and kill their prey.
OWEN WILLIAMSON / PHOTO
VOTE FOR ROSIES
‘Blindness’ loses sight with excessive violence BY MITCH RINGENBERG mringenberg@hilite.org
Beginning Nov. 3, a review of every 2008-2009 Rosewater nominee will be featured exclusively on www.hilite.org. Read the review, watch the accompanying video produced by the drama department, and vote for your favorite in January.
“Blindness,” the new film by acclaimed director Fernando Meirelles, is an intelligent and thoughtprovoking film, but not one for the squeamish. “Blindness” is based on a novel of the same name by José Saramago, who won the Nobel Prize for literature. Meirelles directed the ground-breaking and awardwinning “City of God,” along with the acclaimed “The Constant Gardener.” With such an impressive billing behind the film, many will be expecting a masterpiece. Alas, this is not the case. “Blindness” is a good film, with a great story and message to offer, but many of its flaws are not difficult to miss. The movie begins with a single inexplicable event. A young man is driving his car down a busy intersection in an unknown city (we are never given the name of the film’s setting) when he suddenly goes blind. This is not blindness in the conventional sense. Instead of seeing “black” or the absence of light, all the victim sees is a bright white. To make things even stranger, it is contagious. Eventually, it seems as if the majority of the country has caught this “blindness” and panic has erupted throughout the world. Nobody has any idea where this plague came from or how to cure it. The blind want to be cured, and the unaffected desperately want to hold onto their sight. The government begins to send all of the afflicted into quarantines, where the real story begins. The story follows the plight of one survivor, played by Julianne Moore, who feigns blindness in order to be with her husband (who, ironically, is an eye doctor), who is being sent to a quarantine. The quarantine is essentially an abandoned hospital with around four separate wards where the blind are basically just given food and left to fend for themselves. It is here where the story reveals its true meaning. The epidemic strips everyone of their basic human dignities, thus exposing their true nature and morals, or in some cases, a lack thereof. The wards begin to turn on one another for food, and one ward in particular, led by a vicious and evil “king,” takes things much too far. This is where my biggest complaint concerning the
BLINDNESS-THEMOVIE.COM / PHOTO film comes. There are some scenes in “Blindness,” intended to be effective and disturbing that are almost too much to endure. Don’t get me wrong, I’m certainly not someone to criticize a film for its violence–I thoroughly enjoyed the “Saw” series–but in order for it to work in a story’s benefit, it has to serve a purpose, and the film has to have heart. But the violence in this film is sexualized, and while it does indeed benefit the film’s story, it is brutal and cold, and many audience members will feel the need to walk out of the theater during certain scenes. When a film makes you feel uncomfortable, it can be good or bad. It’s a good thing if you feel uncomfortable simply because you care and sympathize with a character and don’t want to watch them go through any pain. When it’s bad, the film is simply showing you actions or images that you do not want to see. Unfortunately, this film falls more on the latter side, which prevents it
from being better than it is. However, this film contains some strong and moving performances, particularly by Moore and Mark Ruffalo, who plays the husband, as the fi lm’s main two protagonists, who are never given names to enhance the film’s symbolism. Moore is especially impressive as the doctor’s wife, while giving us a believable take as a heroine leading the blind. Ruffalo is clearly challenging his acting chops in this role and does a great job with his character. There will be a great deal of moviegoers and critics panning this film, which is understandable. However, this movie is not for ever yone. People with weak stomachs may want to think twice before paying to see it. On the other hand, moviegoers looking for a change of pace from multi-million dollar blockbusters and wanting to be challenged will find something to appreciate in “Blindness.”