If you grew up in the late 90s or 2000s, you have probably read a “Goosebumps” book or seen one of the television adaptations. If you were like me, you went through a phase where you thought “Goosebumps” was the peak of horror. I remember telling my brother at one point that the intro music to the series was the creepiest music to ever be made. I was in a weird period where I appreciated scary things, but traditional horror was too scary. That made anything R.L Stine created perfect for me. I watched a two-part episode of the 1995 “Goosebumps” series for this post. It was definitely a nostalgic experience. 

     The episode I watched was “The Werewolf of Fever Swamp.” The basis is a married pair of scientists moving to a swamp area with their kids for a study they are doing. This study is to see how deer adapt to this new environment. Now I know this is a petty thing to be annoyed about, but my biggest critique of the show is that some things were just plain wrong. One, deer live in swamps naturally. Two, they just weren’t in a swamp. I have been in the forests of the American northeast enough to recognize that the swamp was just a forest with some fake Spanish moss strewn about. Like I said, petty. 

     Other than that, it was surprisingly not that bad. It definitely wasn’t scary, but then again, I’m not the main audience. There were a lot of cliches and archetypal characters, but it wasn’t completely predictable or boring. There was actually a plot twist that managed to surprise me! Though I admit, some things were very predictable to the point that even young me would have seen it coming. They weren’t horrible actors, especially the kids. I have seen a lot of horror movies and shows in my day, and I have to say this was far from the worst. 

     Most of the characters filled archetypes, and that wasn’t necessarily a problem. The older sister was social and always annoyed with her little brother. The parents were skeptical and just didn’t understand. Their son met a local boy who welcomed him to the community and showed him around. The only problem that I had with the archetypes was with the hermit character. Everyone assumed the mentally ill homeless man was the werewolf. I know this is an older show, but similar tropes still happen in film and literature today. The town outcast isn’t to be trusted and mental health issues are villainized. I know it isn’t outrightly ableist or anything like that, but I think the underlying message is still there. Think about how many horror movies have a mentally or physically disabled person as the villain or “monster.” As someone who has struggled with mental health most of my life, I find it just annoying. 

     But I digress, the episode exceeded my expectations. I thought it was going to be boring and poor quality, but I was pleasantly surprised. I am just being nitpicky because I honestly can’t find much to critique.

     My first post in this series was about Clive Barker’s “The Hellbound Heart.” It felt wrong to group this book and the movie it inspired in the same review, so I will be talking about the movie “Hellraiser” today. First of all, this movie was written and directed by Barker himself, and came out one year after the book was published. That is more than many movie adaptations can say. Generally, movie adaptations have a bad reputation for being way worse than the books and getting nothing right *cough cough Percy Jackson*. I had hope that this wouldn’t be the case since the author himself was heavily involved. Boy was I wrong. 

     I know that it won’t be completely the same. There are some things that just don’t work on screen as well as they do on paper, not to mention budget limitations, but I expected more. It is closer to the book than most adaptations I’ve seen, but some parts were still lacking. There were just some odd changes that didn’t seem to have a reason to be different. For one, the name of one of the characters was changed from Rory to Larry. His relationship to another character was also changed. The character in the book, Kirsty, was a family friend who had a crush on Rory and was jealous of his wife. In the movie, Kirsty is Larry’s daughter and Kirsty’s stepdaughter. I think what made the book so interesting was the way that the relationships brought out the story’s themes in the characters. Kirsty’s desires in the book drove most of her actions, which makes sense in a book about desire and pleasure. 

     My biggest critique of the movie was it relied more on the shock value of violence more. Yes, the book was violent and disturbing, but the movie lacked the same artistic flourish that made me like the book. The movie acted as a way to show gore rather than explore the concept of pain, pleasure, and desire. The violence in the movie was also shot strangely. I know you can only get away with so much because of ratings, but the scenes were quick and repetitive. It felt like it took away from the cruelty and disturbing aspects of the cenobites. Speaking of the cenobites, they barely were shown until later in the movie. The book had them described in detail early on, but the movie only had quick shots. I do think they depicted them well, costume-wise, though. 

     It might sound messed up to want better torture scenes, and I recognize it probably is messed up. I am just a big fan of psychological horror. The book was slow and detailed and used all of the senses to affect the reader. It was physical and mental, which was a refreshing change from a basic slasher. The differences in the movie just seemed out of character. The whole thing with the cenobites is that they don’t differentiate between pain and pleasure. They are disturbingly creative with what they do. The movie just lacked that creativity, making the cenobites less scary. I understand that it could be difficult to recreate in a purely visual form, and not many people necessarily want to see that, but I think it is part of what makes this story distinct and interesting.

All in all, I would actually suggest this movie. It isn’t necessarily bad, just not what I like.

     If you are not familiar with Roald Dahl, you are probably familiar with at least the movie adaptions of his more famous works. He is the man responsible for Matilda and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. If you have seen or read any of these, you will know that they tend to have some darker themes. Despite this, he is considered a children’s author. His unique way of telling stories for children shines through his short story “The Landlady.” It is a scary story that an adult may enjoy, but still around an 8th grade reading level.

     I first read this story for a Language Arts class in 8th grade. At this point, I didn’t really know who Roald Dahl was. I definitely was familiar with at least some of his work, but I didn’t make the connection. When I reread it for this blog post, I had a whole new appreciation for it. I had a much easier time picturing the setting and characters now, since I was familiar with Dahl’s style. The town described no longer felt like a generic town, but a unique and creepy place. 

     The main character in this story is a seventeen-year-old, Billy Weaver, traveling to a new town to start a new job. The problem is, he is very naive, and this town is very suspicious. A nice pub was suggested for him to stay in for the night, but of course he chooses the mysterious Bed and Breakfast that seems to be pulling him in. There he meets the titular character, the Landlady. She seems nice enough, but Billy quickly decides she is off her rocker. The Landlady’s behavior only gets more obviously erratic as the night goes on. The rent was really cheap, so he decided to stay. Occasionally he thinks, “Huh… that’s strange…” but doesn’t really do anything.

     The story seems to end right before the climax happens, but you can guess what likely happens next. Normally, I am not a fan of open endings. Though Dahl doesn’t actually write what happens next, it still sort of tells what happens. He does this with a lot of foreshadowing and hints. Some of those hints are just the vibes created by the Landlady, but some are very niche knowledge. (If you read the story and don’t get what I am talking about, look up “bitter almond smell”). You can tell he applied his knowledge, either from specific research for the story, or general knowledge. I like this aspect. It separates it from a story anyone could write and makes it more specific to Dahl. Since Dahl doesn’t outright say what happens, it almost forces you into the position of Billy Weaver.

     Even if this wasn’t written to be for kids, it definitely shares themes with Dahl’s children’s stories. Both Matilda and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory have themes of punishing children for various reasons. In Matilda, it is generally wrongful punishment. In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, it is punishment for greed, pride, laziness, etc. This makes The Landlady stand out to me. Billy seems to be punished for naivety, which isn’t nearly as bad as one of the seven deadly sins. Yes, it can get you into trouble, but it is something that naturally happens, and we grow out of it by learning.

     All in all, I like this story and would recommend it.

     Last blog post, I talked about Clive Barker’s “The Hellbound Heart.” Though I do plan on returning to Clive Barker and the movie adaptation of the book, I thought it would be good to take a break.  On a search for more strange horror films, I came across the 1986 movie “From Beyond” by Stuart Gordon. The description seemed like an interesting concept, so I started it. 

   You see, it was one of those movies where the credits roll a few minutes into the movie. The beginning seemed good enough, so I was shocked when “Inspired by the H.P. Lovecraft novel” rolled across the screen. Last post I also mentioned my aversion to H.P Lovecraft. In a lapse of judgment, I thought “Hey, it doesn’t seem that bad, and it’s not like Lovecraft is getting the money, so I’ll try it.” This was a mistake.

     The general concept was about a pair of scientists who invented a machine that opened up the possibility of seeing with your pineal gland. It was theorized that it was sort of a sixth sense. I love sci-fi and the concept of a world we cannot see sounded cool. It was just poorly delivered. My first complaint is the poor quality of the main creature. It looked incredibly unrealistic and cheap. I know I am used to modern movies with technology, but this came after movies like ET and Star Wars Episode IV and they pulled off non-human characters well enough. It was definitely creepy, but not in a classic horror way. It was more of a predatory old man sort of creepy. 

     And that brings me to my next problem. This movie seemed to have a weird obsession with sex. Now I have seen my fair share of horror, so I know that horror tends to have some sexual themes. Surprisingly enough, fear and arousal have some similar biological things going on so it makes sense. Now I will also say that the pineal gland is thought to have some connection to arousal, but it isn’t proven. This movie pushed it too far in my opinion. First off there were 2 rape/sexual assault scenes that seemed to put in just for shock factor. There was one main female character and she was constantly sexualized in the most demeaning way possible. There was also this strange obsession with this one male character’s inability to have sex. The entire movie was just kind of… icky.

     My last main complaint is just the plot. It was repetitive and predictable. You can only have a creature take control of the machine so many times before it gets boring. It was just a loop of “We must turn on the machine! Oh no, it went wrong, we must turn it off! Machine somehow turns on by itself. Break the machine!” I am not kidding this happened like 5 times and the movie wasn’t even that long. 

All in all, I don’t suggest this movie unless you want to see how bad it is. It really reinforced my anti-Lovecraft sentiments. One good thing is that the dog in the movie seems to be named after a crew member, which is refreshing after what Lovecraft named his cat.