Why 'Scooby Doo on Zombie Island' is Actually a Remake of 'The Wicker Man'

Some of you may remember a little film from the 90's called Scooby Doo on Zombie Island, an animated feature that saw everyone's favourite mystery-solving dog head to a secluded island in Louisiana to investigate a number of zombie sightings. Not only is this one of the best animated films of the 90's, but it's also one of the best zombie films that doesn't involve George A. Romero (R.I.P). It has memorable animation, some banging tunes, and some surprisingly spooky moments, all wrapped up in an interesting little plot involving cat people and zombie pirates. It's darker than a lot of Scooby Doo material, but if offers something a little more mature for younger audiences which I feel is important for young fans of all things morbid.

Now cast your mind back to 1973, a year which saw the release of Robin Hardy's seminal folk horror The Wicker Man. The film followed Scottish police Sergeant Howie (Edward Woodward) as he set off to the outer Hebridean island of Summerisle in search of a missing girl named Rowan Morrison. Upon arriving on the island, the devout Christian Howie clashes with the pagan society of Summerisle and soon discovers the sinister truth behind Rowan's disappearance. It's a highly unsettling film immersed in paranoia, and has gone on to become one of the most acclaimed British horror films of all time, with special praise geared towards Christopher Lee's performance as Lord Summerisle. Now, what if I told you that Scooby Doo on Zombie Island is actually a remake of The Wicker Man? 'Hoopla' I hear you say, but hear me out, because there are some striking similarities between the two that I feel the need to point out. Be warned though, major SPOILERS for both films below..

The Premise

Okay, so first of all the basic premise. Zombie Island begins with Scooby (Scott Innes) and co. being called to the mysterious Moonscar Island in the bayous of Louisiana to investigate a series of supernatural phenomena taking place. It is a seemingly friendly invitation with no ulterior motive, prompting Mystery Inc. to accept the invitation. Of course, anyone who has seen the film knows that there is something much more sinister than zombies on Moonscar Island, but we'll get to that later..

Now The Wicker Man also begins with an investigator, this time Sgt. Howie, being called off to an island to investigate a mystery. The Island is Summerisle, a small island located in the outer Hebrides that is supposedly renowned for it's apples. Again, at first it seems like Howie's investigation is a perfectly normal one, but we all know there's much more at stake on Summerisle. So straight off the bat, both films involve individuals being called to an island to solve a mystery. As the film progresses however, we learn that there is a darker secret lying on each respective island waiting on the protagonists. Coincidence? Perhaps not..

Fish (or dog) Out of Water

When Scooby arrives on Moonscar Island, he realises that not only is he the only dog on the island, but that the islands owner Ms. Lenoir (horror legend Adrienne Barbeau) owns a large number of pet cats. This leaves Scooby as an outcast of sorts, mistrusted by Lenoir due to her cat-loving tendencies, which makes him feel a bit isolated on the island. It's not easy being a dog stuck in a world dominated by cats, as Scooby soon finds out.

Much like Scooby, Sgt. Howie is also isolated on Summerisle, only this time due to his religion. From the very beginning it is emphasised that Howie is a very religious man who takes Christianity very seriously. However, upon arriving on Summerisle, he realises that virtually everyone else on the island are members of some ancient pagan religion. Howie also feels isolated due to the lack of Christian values on the island, much like Scooby feels isolated on Moonscar Island due to the lack of canine values. 

A Sinister Seductress

The woman who initially invites Mystery Inc. to Moonscar Island is a young employee of Ms. Lenoir's named Lena (Tara Strong). Lena comes off as a friendly young woman, who becomes particularly close with the gangs leader Fred Jones (Frank Welker). Fred seems smitten with Lena, and she often confides in him when things start to get spooky, it seemed as though a strong attraction was forming between the two. However, in the final act it is revealed that Lena is less than friendly, and that her kind demeanor was merely a front for her sinister personality, we shall come to that in a while. 

When Howie arrives on Summerisle, he is introduced to the landlord's daughter, a beautiful young woman named Willow (Britt Ekland) who appears to take a liking to him. The celibate Howie finds it difficult to resist Willow's charms, and there is an infamous scene in which she sings to him from the room next to his, hoping to entice him. Howie struggles to maintain his celibacy around Willow and at one point almost breaks it. Towards the end, Willow is also revealed to be in on the overall conspiracy, much like Lena in Zombie Island. She too had become friendly and flirty with Howie, only to turn against him in the films final act.

Icons of Horror

As I have mentioned, Adrienne Barbeau takes on the role of Ms. Lenoir in Zombie Island, the owner of Moonscar Island and the films primary antagonist. Initially she comes across as friendly towards Mystery Inc. much like her employee Lena. However, she too has a sinister side that comes out towards the films climax. By the films release in 1998 Barbeau was already an established icon in the horror genre, starring in films such as The Fog and Creepshow while also being married to the horror master himself John Carpenter between 1979 and 1984. Casting her as the films antagonist brought a new layer of villainy to the character due to those prior links to the horror genre, and Barbeau is excellent at bringing out the different layers of Ms. Lenoir.

The Wicker Man also had a horror legend in the role of the antagonist, this time Dracula himself, Christopher Lee. The actor who had been most famous for his roles in countless Hammer horror films was looking to do a more grounded horror film, ultimately signing onto The Wicker Man. He also plays the owner of an island, Lord Summerisle, who acts as the films primary antagonist. Summerisle initially comes off as a charming man who is kind towards the rather stern Sgt. Howie, however, towards the end of the film it is clear that he will do anything to keep the gods happy. Lee brings his signature sense of sinister charm to the role, giving him a chance to really showcase his acting chops in comparison to some of his other roles. I believe it was one of his favourite roles.

It Was Pagans All Along

In the climax of Zombie Island, it is revealed that the residents of Moonscar Island all belong to a pagan cult that worship an ancient cat god, thus the abundance of cats on the island. After their island was pillaged by fearsome pirates, the cult members prayed to their god to give them the power to avenge their fallen companions. Ultimately, they were granted with the power to transform into fearsome, immortal cat people and took their revenge on the pirates. However, in order to maintain their immortality, Ms. Lenoir and co. had to lure people to the island every year and drain their lifeforces, the zombies being their former victims. Ultimately, Scooby and the gang defeat the cat people and put the lost souls of the zombies to rest for good, ending the film on a positive note. If only the same could be said for Howie..

Similarly, Summerisle is also populated by members of a pagan cult, although this is a given piece of information from the beginning. However, the big surprise comes at the end when it is revealed that Howie was called to the island for the purpose of being a sacrifice himself. It is revealed that the crops on Summerisle are failing, and Lord Summerisle believes that only a human sacrifice can please the gods of the harvest and save their crops. Howie fit their qualifications for a sacrifice and was called to the island in the beginning so that he could eventually be used as such. Both the people of Moonscar Island and Summerisle are part of pagan cults who have lured the protagonists to the island in order to eventually sacrifice them for their own personal gain. This is the most striking similarity between both films and is a major plot point in both The Wicker Man and Scooby Doo on Zombie Island. 

Okay, so maybe it's a bit of a stretch calling Scooby Doo on Zombie Island a remake of The Wicker Man, but both films bare striking similarities to one another that cannot be ignored. Both have vaguely similar plot involving individuals being called to a secluded island in order to investigate something, only to discover that they are part of a pagan cults sinister plot. It may not be a straight out remake of The Wicker Man, but Scooby Doo on Zombie Island was clearly influenced by the folk horror classic and borrows more than just a few elements from Hardy's film. Even at that, it's still a better remake than the Nick Cage Wicker Man, but let's not get into that. So next time you're thinking of sitting down to watch The Wicker Man or Zombie Island, why not watch both? Witness the similarities for yourselves.

Ranking the 'Friday the 13th' Films From Worst to Best

So last week I wrote a piece on the Nightmare on Elm Street films and ranked them from worst to best. After that, I was inspired to do a similar piece with the Friday the 13th series, and after sitting through some of the most unbearable sequels ever, I have finally completed the franchise. The franchise unleashed the iconic slasher Jason Voorhees into the world, hacking his way from Camp Crystal Lake, to Manhattan (kind of), to hell, and eventually the future.. As you can tell, things get really weird in the later films. Some of the films were surprisingly quite enjoyable and still hold up well today, others however..well, you'll see. I'm not including the remake as I didn't include it in the Nightmare on Elm Street list and felt it wouldn't be fair to do so with this. Also, mild SPOILERS ahead. Without further ado, here is my definitive ranking of the Friday the 13th franchise.

11. Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday (1993)

This was just woeful, absolutely woeful. The basic premise is that Jason (Kane Hodder) is blown up by the FBI and seemingly killed once and for all. However, Jason now (somehow) has the power to possess people and jumps from body to body to track down a distant relative in order to possess her and become his former self again. I know, it's just as bad as it sounds. The film doesn't just jump the shark, it jumps a whole family of them by giving Jason the ability to possess his victims. This really lets the film down in a sense, because no matter how bad these sequels got, they at least had Kane Hodder giving it his best as a really formidable Jason. However, here Hodder only gets about 10 minutes screen time as Jason, along with a brief cameo as a security guard where he is ironically killed by Jason. The film boasts some awful performances and a terrible script as well, further solidifying it as a prime example of cinematic feces. It has some merits, Steven Williams from 21 Jump Street is entertaining as bounty hunter Creighton Duke, and it has some easter eggs that reference other horror films such as the crate from Creepshow, and the Necronomicon from The Evil Dead. The final scene also teases Freddy vs Jason, although that wouldn't get released until 10 years later. An awful film altogether that makes one of the most iconic slashers of the 1980's into a mere laughing stock.

10. Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (1989)

Ah Jason Takes Manhattan, a more appropriate name would be Jason Takes (a boat to) Manhattan. The film is 100 minutes long, making it one of the longer entries in the franchise, yet only about 40 of those at most actually take place in the Big Apple. The other hour or so takes place on a boat bound from Crystal Lake full of partying college graduates. It's an extremely misleading title that makes the final product incredibly disappointing. But that's not all. The film has a countless number of plot holes throughout and the worst part is that they're not even subtle ones. One example is that Jason supposedly can't swim, which makes sense considering how he drowned as a child and was explicitly noted later on in Freddy vs Jason, yet he somehow manages to swim from the wrecked ship to the shores of Manhattan. Another, and my personal favourite, is that Jason somehow now has the ability to teleport. Several times during the film, he will be pursuing a potential victim, right behind them, when suddenly he appears in front of them? Have the multiple resurrections given Jason the ability to teleport? If so, why doesn't he use it to teleport out of the way of a car that hits him? I don't know why I bother questioning this utterly nonsensical film, it's a waste of time. It's only saving merits are the fact that once again, Kane Hodder is a truly menacing Jason, and that the dog manages to make it to the end. At least it does something right.

9. Jason X (2001)

Just when you thought they couldn't milk this franchise anymore, they send Jason Voorhees (Kane Hodder one again) into the future. Yep, after being cryogenically frozen beneath the Crystal Lake Research Facility, Jason is thawed out in the future by a research crew who take him aboard their ship along with one of his surviving victims who was frozen with him. This entry is just utterly bonkers, as you can probably tell. The best way to sum it up is Alien meets Star Trek but with Jason Voorhees on board the ship and not scary. Hell, I'm sure there's even episodes of Star Trek that are scarier than this. The whole production value feels really cheap, making Jason X feel like more of a low rate TV movie than the final chapter in Jason Voorhees' life. Along with that, it's got some truly painful performances that make some TV movies look almost like Oscar winners. It ranks above Jason Takes Manhattan and Jason Goes to Hell solely for comedic value, obviously unintentional that is. From an ass-kicking, leather clad cyborg woman, to a man with a weird nipple clamp fetish (don't ask), the film is just downright bizarre, someone actually thought that this would be a good idea. Even more bizarre is the brief cameo from Canadian body horror king David Cronenberg, what the fuck was he doing in this? Much like Jason Takes Manhattan, the promotion for this film was a bit misleading, teasing the cybernetic 'Uber Jason' in all his chrome glory. However, we don't even see Uber Jason until the last twenty minutes, so the rest of the film is basically zombie, in a hockey mask, on a spaceship. I know, right? A bizarre piece of cinema altogether.

8. Friday the 13th Part III (1982)

In gloriouos 3-D! Yes, the third film in the franchise is the most gimmicky of them all and relies all too heavily on the fact that it uses 3-D. There are several laughable moments where things blatantly shoot towards the screen to take advantage of the 3-D. My personal favourite is the bit with the yoyo. This is undoubtedly an important film in the franchise as it is the first time Jason (Richard Brooker) ever dons the iconic hockey mask. However, despite its eye popping gimmicks, the film is just a little bit forgettable. None of the characters are all that memorable, I mean there was that hippie looking guy, and the other guy who looks like Freaks and Geeks era Seth Rogen, but apart from that everyone else is just disposable. If it relied more on character development than the whole 3-D thing then maybe, just maybe, it could have been a much better film. However, it pours much of its attention into the gimmick that it takes away from most of the other aspects of the film. What I will say however, is that the film does have the best opening theme of the franchise that you can listen to in all it's synthy glory here, and that's the extended version! Overall, Part III is largely forgettable, and just rather bland, even with that soundtrack and the outlandish 3-D sequences.

7. Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (1988)

Or Carrie vs Jason as I like to call it. This film had the great idea of introducing the character of Tina (Lar Park Lincoln), a girl with telekinetic powers who was definitely not inspired by Carrie. Tina unwittingly brings Jason back from the depths of Crystal Lake with her powers while attempting to contact her dead father who she accidentally killed years ago. It's quite obvious that this is the point in which the franchise really started going downhill, the characters are all forgettable, the acting is not great, and the fact that the writers had to introduce telekinesis to the franchise just says it all. However, what the film does get right is Jason himself, and New Blood's iteration of the character is probably my favourite. This is the first time that Kane Hodder dons the hockey mask, and he manages to bring a new layer of physical menace to the character. He is sinister and slow-moving, almost like a Boris Karloff character, and he is also extremely physically imposing. He is a true force of nature that lets nothing get in his way, hacking through people and throwing them about like they're mere ragdolls. His appearance was equally menacing, covered in mud and wrapped in chains like some Dickensian spirit, he's an incredibly unsettling figure altogether. Hodder brought a sense of personality to the character which was much more refreshing for the franchise than telekinesis could ever be. It's just a shame they kept the best Jason for the worst sequels. New Blood isn't totally bad, it's not exceptionally good either, it's just kind of average to be honest.

6. Freddy vs Jason (2003)

The long awaited crossover teased ten years beforehand in Jason Goes to Hell, Freddy vs Jason is alright. It's not inherently bad, in fact it's quite funny and has plenty of service for fans of both antagonists, but it feels a little underwhelming considering the ten year wait. The film makes a point to provide Jason with a little more development, making him a somewhat sympathetic character in some ways. In this film he is manipulated by Freddy Krueger (Robert England) through the form of is mother Pamela so that he will set out to kill the teenagers of Springwood once again. Jason is played by Ken Kirzinger here, replacing Kane Hodder for some reason, and he's quite good in the role. He doesn't really get the chance to make the character his own in the same way Hodder did, however he has some really good moments such as the iconic cornfield party massacre. Out of the two villains, Jason feels like the more sympathetic one in some ways, he feels more like a pawn of Freddy than anything else. I feel like this takes away from his menace in some ways, in the past films he was just a stone cold killing machine with no mercy for any of his victims, yet here, we can't help but root for him at times. An entertaining, yet somewhat underwhelming send off to Jason, Freddy vs Jason makes him more of an antihero than a flat out baddie, which has both its merits and its disadvantages.

5. Friday the 13th: A New Beginning (1985)

Now I'll admit I do respect the fact that this film at least tried to do something different. Instead of just ressurecting Jason like the later sequels would do, this one opts to leave the killers identity ambiguous until the end of the film. Has Jason returned from the dead? Or is someone else behind the murders? The answer is extremely underwhelming, but sure at least it tried to do something different. This is also the first film to take the action away from Crystal Lake, instead moving things to Pinehurst Halfway House where Tommy Jarvis (John Shepard) is sent to help cope with his PTSD after surviving Jasons 'final' massacre. This allows for the film to play on a number of psychological elements by utilising dream sequences and hallucinations to mess with the audiences head. This was a bold move for the film that allows it to set itself apart from the other, hardcore slashers of the franchise. However, the film has a large abundance of characters that it's hard to keep track of them all. In fact, there are times when it feels like it introduces certain characters only to kill them off in the next scene. They feel more like cattle than characters. It's an ambitious sequel at least, it acknowledges the fact that Jason is dead and attempts to take the franchise in a new direction instead of just milking things like the later sequels would do. Unfortunately, overall the film wasn't executed (lol) very well and feels a bit anticlimactic by the end of it all.

4. Friday the 13th Part II (1981)

Another extremely important entry in the franchise as it is the film that establishes Jason as the primary antagonist of the series. After watching his mother die at the end of the first Friday the 13th, Jason Voorhees (Steve Daskawisz) emerges in Crystal Lake for the first time in years, killing off a new group of counsellors who have arrived at the camp. Beginning with the lone survivor of the first film, Jason slashes his way through countless teens in a vengeance-fuelles rage after the death of his mother, and if one thing is clear, Jason has watched one too many Mario Bava films. Yes, this is the film that borrows not one, but two death scenes from Bava's phenomenal giallo film A Bay of Blood. The most obvious example is the scene where two people are impaled during intercourse, while another is the scene in which wheelchair-bound Mark has a machete stuck in his head. It's clear that the film takes a lot of inspiration from A Bay of Blood, but to be honest in comparison to some of the later sequels it's not half bad. It's the film that essentially introduced us to Jason Voorhees and established him as the imposing menace that would terrorise Crystal Lake for years to come. It's a solid follow up to the first film that packs a fair amount of suspense and memorable death scenes.

3. Friday the 13th (1980)

The film that started it all. After being inspired by John Carpenter's Halloween and Wes Craven's Last House on the Left, on which he worked, Sean S. Cunningham decided to make a slasher film of his own. Set at an old summer camp, the film followed a group of youths attempting to re-open the camp for the first time in years, only for a mysterious killer to start picking them off one by one. With it's POV shots and general formula, Friday the 13th clearly borrowed a lot from Halloween, yet it's distinctive location and ambiguity behind the killer's identity gave Friday the 13th it's own personality. It is quite a tense film as we watch this killer pick of the unsuspecting counsellors one by one, a formula that would inspire a number of future films such as Sleepaway Camp and The Burning. Of course, the real highlight of the film is Betsy Palmer's performance as resident maniac Pamela Voorhees. Although she only appears in the final act, Palmer is phenomenal in the role and manages to find the perfect balance between sweet old lady and maniacal killer. Her appearance is brief yet she leaves such an impact by the end of the film, it's no wonder Jason turned out to be nuts, it must run in the family. While it doesn't capture that sheer sense of dread of Halloween, or the grizzly shock value of Last House on the Left, Friday the 13th is an effective and memorable slasher flick that birthed one of the most long running horror franchises ever. Also, look out for a young Kevin Bacon.

2. Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives (1986)

Okay, when I began watching Jason Lives I thought it was extremely dumb. The basic premise is that Tommy Jarvis (Thom Matthews) attempts to put his fears of Jason to rest for good by visiting his grave and ensuring that he is dead. Jarvis then stabs Jason with a metal rod that, by sheer coincidence, gets struck by lightning which in turn resurrects Jason. Yep, I know, it's a bizarre premise and at first I thought 'are they really doing that?', but to be honest, what follows is one of the most memorable and most fun films in the whole franchise. It's got car chases, it's got gun fights, it's got undead Jason Voorhees doing what he does best, it's an extremely enjoyable picture that breathes a breath of fresh air into the franchise. It's also got some of the best performances of the franchise, Matthews is an excellent Tommy Jarvis, playing the character with much more charm and personality than John Shepard in the previous film. Jennifer Cooke is equally enjoyable as Megan Garris and I will stand by the fact that her performance is the best of the franchise. She is just so naturally charismatic and shares an excellent chemistry with Shepard. That's one thing that Jason Lives does so well, it's characters actually feel like people as opposed to just disposable teens. We actually care about whether or not they survive and that makes the film much more effective than some of the later films. It's a fun film overall, it doesn't take itself too seriously and has a sense of almost meta-humor that lets you know that. This gives it an advantage over some of the other sequels.

1. Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (1984)

We all know that this is far from the final chapter in the franchise, but it is by far the best. Initially intended as the concluding film in the series, The Final Chapter is the definitive Friday the 13th film. After being presumed dead after the events of Part III, Jason Voorhees (Ted White) breaks out of the morgue and returns to Crystal Lake for another gruesome killing spree. The film has the most layered plot of the franchise, not just focusing on a group of teenagers, but also on a local family and man named Rob (E. Erich Anderson) who has a personal vendetta against Jason. All of these subplots weave into each other nicely, making for a stronger narrative in comparison to the previous films. Much like Jason Lives, this film also has some really likable characters that we can actually get behind and root for. Some notable highlights are Jimmy (Crispin Glover), a shy introvert hoping to prove that he isn't a 'dead fuck', and the young Tommy Jarvis (Corey Feldman), a boy with a penchant for horror movie masks. This allows us to invest our interest in the characters, raising the stakes of the film. The Final Chapter also boasts some of the most grizzly death scenes of the franchise, courtesy of a talented special effects team that included SFX maestro Tom Savini. My personal favourite is when Jason takes out a morgue attendant with a saw before twisting his neck around. It's definitely the heaviest on the gore. The Final Chapter would have been the perfect way to end the franchise, it had a strong narrative, likable characters, grizzly deaths, and put Jason to rest for good (or what seemed to be for good). It also has an iconic dance scene where Crispin Hellion Glover lets loose. The Final Chapter takes everything that's good about the franchise and rolls it all up into an excellent little slasher flick that still holds up today.

Sitting through some of these films made the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise feel like the pinnacle of cinema. The later films were especially poor and were almost painful to watch at times. However, the franchise does have its standout moments, along with some memorable death scenes and some decent performances. Jason himself is also a truly menacing villain, especially during the Hodder era which is a shame considering how awful those films were. It's been a bizarre journey overall, taking the action from New Jersey, to Manhattan, to four hundred years into the future, Jason's had some mad adventures over the years. I'm just glad I won't ever have to watch Jason Goes to Hell again. I suppose it's only right that I start on the Halloween sequels as soon to finish off this trilogy of terror. Until next time.

'Mother!' Review

There has been much anticipation surrounding Darren Aronofsky's most recent picture, Mother! While many critics have praised its technical elements and performances, others have been quite critical towards the narrative structure and its disturbing content. This being an Aronofsky film, disturbing content should come as no suprise considering that he was the man behind psychological ballet horror Black Swan, and the drug-fuelled cautionary tale Requiem for a Dream. However, Mother! is a different type of film altogether. What Mother! essentially does is creep under your skin and irritate you to the point that it's practically imploring you to hate it. This is by no means a bad thing however, as Mother! is one of the most engaging and thoroughly captivating films of the year.

The film stars Jennifer Lawrence as an unnamed woman (credited as 'Mother') who is married to a renowned poet played by Javier Bardem (credited as 'Him'). The two share a tranquil existence in a secluded octagonal house in the country, He works on his writers block, while Mother works on the house. It's clear from the beginning that their relationship is not as idyllic as it may seem, there is this sense of detachment between the two of them that tells the audience something is missing between them. However, we soon learn that this is the case between Lawrence and all of the films characters. A man (Ed Harris) soon arrives at the house, eventually followed by his wife (Michelle Pfeiffer), and it's the same case with them as well. There is this constant sense of detachment between Mother and the other characters. She always feels as if she has no say, nobody listens to her or takes her seriously and at times it's as if there is this huge joke that everybodies in on except her. It's frustrating in a sense, as it's clear that a lot of the peoples actions upset her, but even at that nobody will ever listen to her. This is where the heart of the films frustration lies and is what will gradually distress the audience as things develop.

I'm going to go straight out and say that this is Lawrences best performance yet. What begins as a subtle, very naturalistic performance, gradually builds up to a harrowing portrayal of sheer emotion and frustration. Even if you're not a fan of Lawrence, you will find it extremely difficult not to empathise with her character. Bardem, who plays her husband, shares an interesting dynamic with her that emphaises that sense of detachment she has with everyone in the film. Sometimes Bardem's character will say something that Mother clearly disagrees with, Lawrence will shoot him an expression of confusion or distress that he gently brushes off or dismisses. They don't feel like a married couple up until a turning point halfway through the film. In the second half, Bardem is much more engaging and loving with her, but due to certain circumstances, things begin to decline yet again. Harris and Pfeiffer both give great performances, Pfeiffer is particularly memorable as the sinister, seductive woman who picks at Mother throughout the film, adding fuel to the fire of distress. Again, her and Harris both share that same dynamic with Lawrenece, acting as though she is invisible at times and that she has very little importance to them.

Once again, Aronofksy proves that his direction is second to none. Here, he makes extensive use of tracking shots and close ups of Lawrence to really put the audience in her shoes. Some have been critical towards the amount of close ups used, but I think they were helpful in getting us behind Lawrence's character. The fact that we are constantly with Mother helps us to experience her feelings and emotions, in this case, irritation and distress. Aronofsky displays an excellent talent for inducing anxiety in his audience. The lack of score and extensive use of tracking shots essentially puts us behind Mother's eyes. This proves useful for building suspense at times as it constantly leaves us waiting for something to appear around the next corner. However, it's in the second half of the film where Aronofsky truly fills his audience with anguish, bombarding them with what can only be described as sheer chaos that builds and builds into a crescendo of madness. We follow Mother through it all and it is a thoroughly disorienting experience altogether. Not since Children of Men has a director been so successful in really putting the audience right in the middle of the action to invoke sheer distress. You feel like shouting at the screen in pure frustration in the hope that somebody will just listen for once.

The film eventually builds to what is sure to go down as the most controversial moment in cinema this year, I won't spoil anything, but it's certainly not for the faint hearted. This is perhaps where the most peoples main criticisms lie regarding Mother! but Aronofsky insists that it is crucial to the central theme of the film. It didn't bother me so much, but I can see how it could effect some negatively. However, as Aronofsky would tell you, if you think it's unnecessary you're missing the point. Without giving too much away, the film carries some strong themes about the environment that Aronofksy conveys subtly throughout. Bearing this in mind, it is understandable why he felt the need to go to such extreme lengths in the films final act. Those of you expecting some grand twist or explanation may be disappointed at the end of it all, I heard plenty of people in the cinema chatting about how they wished that they walked out earlier. However, the film doesn't aim to provide the audience with a twist. It is a surreal and dreamlike film, that focuses more on its thematic elements than surprising the audience at the end. Needless to say, Aronofsky is superb at expressing these themes and provoking thought from the audience.

Mother! is a nightmarish insight into the life of a woman who often feels neglected and ignored by those around her. Aronofsky is excellent at conveying these emotions to the audience so that the film becomes very experiential, creating a consistent air of distress and disorientation that holds up right until the end. Lawrence is fantastic in the leading role and is excellent at invoking the audiences empathy and expressing her increasingly fractured emotions. She gives a truly harrowing performance that could very well earn her another Oscar nomination. Mother! is a film that tests its audience and pushes them to the very limit, bringing out emotions of pure anxiety. It practically begs you to hate it, but with such talented direction and performances it is hard to hate such a well-crafted piece of cinema. Aronofsky outdoes himself yet again with Mother! and while a thoroughly enjoyed it, it is sure to be one of the years most divisive films yet.

Ranking the 'Nightmare on Elm Street' Films From Worst to Best

The 80's were notorious for the extensive number of slasher films released within the decade. After the success of indie slasher Halloween, many other studios and filmmakers attempted to capitalise on this success as well. This spawned a number of other similar slasher films, which in turn, spawned some of their own sequels and franchises that spanned the entire decade. One such film that spawned a successful string of slasher sequels was Wes Cravens A Nightmare on Elm Street. The film took a unique approach to the slasher formula, following a supernatural killer named Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) who stalked teenagers in their dreams. Naturally, the film spawned a number of sequels that I recently decided to power through once and for all. I felt it was high time I sat myself down and watched the sequels, no matter how bad they got. After several bad puns and dead teenagers, I recently completed the franchise and decided to do my own personal ranking of the films from worst to best. The following list will focus on the Robert Englund films only, simply because I was not arsed to watch that awful looking remake. You can only take so much Freddy.

8. A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)

The first, and the worst sequel to Wes Craven's original film, Freddy's Revenge is just plain awful. The film picks up five years after the first and follows Jesse (Mark Patton), the new occupant of the old Thompson's house who comes into contact with Freddy. The main problem with Freddy's Revenge is how much it messes with the logic of the original film. It involved Freddy attempting to posses young Jesse in order to return to the real world. First of all, the idea of Freddy wanting to leave the dream world is just absurd, why would he want to leave a realm over which he is in total control? The whole point of dragging him into the real world in the first film was to make him vulnerable, why on earth would he want to be vulnerable again? On top of that, the characters are bland and forgettable, and some moments are just cringe-worthy. Why does Jesse twerk his drawer shut? What in gods name are those dog things with human faces? The film does have some redeeming qualities to be fair, the transformation scene boasts some excellent practical effects and the shower scene is particularly brutal, but overall this is just tripe. In the years since its release, Freddy's Revenge has been seen as a metaphor for closeted homosexuality and there are some not so subtle hints within the film that support this. Even with that however, there are better ways to present the fears faced by the LGBTQ+ community in horror cinema than in low rate slashers like Freddy's Revenge. 

7. A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989)

This entry is not as awful as Freddy's Revenge, but it's just plain sloppy. The script is weak, the performances are questionable, and even Freddy himself feels like a worn out parody of his former self. Remember Scary Terry from Rick and Morty? Even he feels more like Freddy Krueger than Freddy himself does here. This time he's back yet again by using the dreams of an unborn child, to make things more personal the child belongs to the films protagonist Alice (Lisa Wilcox), the final girl of the fourth installment. I was never a fan of Alice and that's mainly due to Wilcox' rather unconvincing performance, so the fact that she was front and center yet again did not make this film any better for me. Even worse than Wilcox is Joe Seely as Mark Grey, a potentially likeable character dragged down by Seely's bland performance. But the actors aren't all to blame, the overall script just feels weak in comparison to the earlier films. Some of the dialogue is patchy, and Freddy's quips just aren't what they used to be (although I am a fan of 'bon apetit bicth!'), it feels like more of a parody than anything else. The film does have some memorable death scenes however, some of my favourites being the bike scene and 'super Freddy', but not even the enjoyable practical effects can save this film. Nancy Thompson didn't kill Freddy Krueger, The Dream Child did.

6. Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991)

This is the most frustrating film of the franchise. Freddy's Dead has some really interesting ideas, first of all we have a protagonist that we know very little about apart from the fact that he has some connection to Freddy, adding a layer of mystery to the plot. Secondly, the town of Springwood is portrayed as a bizzare, almost dystopian village where there are no children left and the adults act really strange. It's a surreal, almost Lynchian depiction of the town that presented a lot of potential for the film. The first act feels a lot more darker and serious in tone compared to its predecessor The Dream Child, however, things quickly go downhill after that. Instead of building upon the unique ideas of the first act, the film opts for a more formulaic and familiar approach while providing more unwanted backstory for the titular killer. It's such a shame because I really found myself getting intrigued by this film and its unique approach, however, attempting to give Freddy more of a backstory was a bad decision that only succeeds at making him less imposing. As well, the final act just felt extremely underwhelming, especially after the build up and the more epic finales of the previous film. Christ, even Freddy's Revenge had a more enthralling climax, and that had those poxy dog things. Freddy's Dead is an uneven mess, it presents some really promising concepts in the beginning only to fall flat in the final act. Also, it wasn't even the final nightmare after all..

5. Freddy vs Jason (2003)

I'm going to go ahead and say that I actually like Freddy vs Jason. It is a heavily flawed film, but it's a fun experience that captures some of the best qualities of both of the antagonists. With Freddy unable to haunt peoples dreams anymore, he begins to manipulate Jason Voorhees into killing the teenagers of Springwood so that they will believe in Freddy again. However, when they begin to fear Jason more than they do Freddy, the latter decides to face off against is hockey-mask wearing counterpart in a battle of monstrous proportions. It was nice to see Robert Englund having fun with the role yet again, it was clear in Freddy's Dead that he wasn't the same Freddy that he used to be, but here he is both fun and imposing yet again. The film also has plenty of Easter eggs from some of the previous entries in the franchise such as the inclusion of Westin Hills psychiatric hospital and the references to some of the older films. While it does provide plenty of fan service for horror buffs, and while it is great to see Englund enjoying himself as Freddy again, it just doesn't feel too scary. There are some bloody moments for sure, and while it is somewhat darker than some of the campier Elm Street films, there are moments when it feels a bit too cartoonish. Regardless, it was an enjoyable entry to both franchises and a fitting send off to Englund in his final onscreen performance as Freddy Krueger.

4. A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)

The highest grossing film of the franchise, excluding Freddy vs Jason, The Dream Master may not be the scariest film of the franchise, but it is definitely one of the most fun. Picking up after the third installment Dream Warriors, the film follows Freddy as he sets off to kill the remaining Elm Street kids once and for all. Freddy is out in full force in this entry and Englund is clearly having a lot of fun in the role yet again. The kills are all equally as inventive as the last, each one being personalised to their respective victims. A fitness-obsessed girl has her arms decapitated while bench pressing, before being turned into a bug, while an asthmatic girl literally has her breath sucked away. Each death is as ironic as it is disturbing, and are all topped off with one of Freddy's signature one liners (some of the best being 'how's that for a wet dream', and 'wanna suck face?'). It's the type of film that makes you look forward to each death scene simply because of how fun they are. At the same time, I can't help but feel a bit of resentment for The Dream Master. For one, it takes away any sense of triumph found at the end of its predecessor Dream Warriors. It also introduces Alice to the franchise, one of the most irritating final girls ever and a terrible replacement for the likes of Nancy and Kristen. Worst of all however, I feel as though this is what brought about the downfall of the franchise. The fun and campy atmosphere that it introduced did not translate so well into later installments and ultimately weakened them. It's a shame because it's such an enjoyable film, yet you can't help but blame it for the decline in quality of the later films.

ave

3. Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994)

After Freddy died and seemingly took the franchise with him back in 1991, the original films director Wes Craven stepped up to the plate to bring Elm Street back to its roots. Instead of making a follow up to Freddy's Dead, Craven essentially penned a quasi reboot of the franchise as well. This film follows Elm Street alum Heather Langenkamp, playing a fictionalised version of herself as she faces off against Freddy Krueger who has somehow made his way into the real world. The campy atmosphere and cheesy one liners were dead and gone, this version of Freddy was much more ferocious and serious than in previous installments. Here, Englund shows us that Freddy can still be scary, and this iteration of Krueger is as scary as you can get. Sporting an updated look that includes a much more grotesque appearance and a black trench coat, Freddy is a true visual nightmare once again. As well as that, the film takes a much more psychological approach, taking into question what's real and what's not real. It's a truly refreshing film that not only makes Elm Street scary again, but also reunites cast members Langenkamp and John Saxon with director Wes Craven once again. Craven even has an acting role as himself in the film. The meta approach to horror made for a truly unique film that looks at horror cinema and the effects it can have on the real world, something Craven would revisit with the Scream franchise. Not only is New Nightmare one of the best Elm Street films, but its also one of Craven's best films as well. 

2. A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

'ONLY NUMBER 2??' I hear you scream, before you slaughter me for this, allow me to explain. I adore A Nightmare on Elm Street. At a time full of similar and formulaic slasher films, Wes Craven dared to try something new by creating a villain who killed you in your dreams. It's a truly terrifying concept that is brought to life with such menace by the great Robert Englund, that moment where he extends his clawed hand and proclaims that 'this is god' will forever live on as one of the most iconic moments in horror cinema. This is Freddy before he truly came out of his shell, he's mysterious, he's scary, and  he never comes across as silly. Englund truly is terrifying in this film, and his performance is matched by the supporting cast that includes veteran actor John Saxon and a young Johnny Depp. Craven's direction managed to create this extremely eerie atmosphere throughout, with the use of shadows and that spine-chilling score, this is the film in which Craven's nightmare world was made real. While it isn't the scariest film of all time, when you compare it to the sequels it may as well be. A Nightmare on Elm Street is a fantastic horror film with a genius concept, woven together by the late, great Wes Craven.

1. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)

...However, I have to say after much thought, I personally think Dream Warriors is the best Elm Street film. This is Freddy at his Freddiest. Englund finds the perfect balance between horrific and charming, being playful, but never campy enough to take away from Freddy's unsettling onscreen presence. Dream Warriors has some of the best kills of the franchise, the television scene, and the scene where Freddy turns a character into a human puppet before walking him off a roof. The kills are personalised and unique to each character, but they are unsettling and never too over the top. It proves that Freddy can be fun while still being scary. The film also boasts a number of strong characters that we can easily empathise with, from the wheelchair-bound Will (Ira Heiden), to recovering addict Taryn (Jennifer Rubin), each character has their own unique personality and none of them feel like mere disposable teens. Front and center is a young Patricia Arquette as the protagonist Kirsten, a girl with the ability to pull people into her dreams and the leader of the eponymous dream warriors. She is aided by the original Elm Street survivor Nancy Thompson, who acts as a consultant at the psychiatric hospital in which the teenagers reside. It essentially acts as the bridge between the first film and the later installments, teaming up the protagonist of the original film with a new generation of dream warriors. It takes all of the best aspects of the franchise and combines them into a fantastic horror film that is as exciting as it is unsettling. This is the true follow up to the first film, and arguably an improvement over it in my opinion. If the franchise had have ended here, I would have been perfectly happy with that. 

Also, look out for a young Laurence Fishburne as a friendly orderly named Max.

So that's my ranking of the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise. While some of the films were just plain awful, I have to say it was an enjoyable experience binge-watching these films, made all the more enjoyable by Robert Englund of course. I'm glad I finally got around to watching all of the sequels and viewing the franchise as a whole. Now if you'll excuse me, it's time to get through the rest of the Friday the 13th films..

'IT' (2017) Review

It's been an eventful year for Stephen King to say the least. Not only have two of his works, The Mist and Mr. Mercedes been adapted to television, but his epic sci-fi tale The Dark Tower also made it to the big screen. However, without a doubt the most anticipated King adaptation of the year was Andy Muschietti's iteration of King's 1986 novel IT. The gargantuan novel follows a supernatural shape shifting being who feeds on fear (and children), and how a group of kids called the Losers Club team up to defeat it, and return 27 years later when it resurfaces again. It's a tough novel to adapt, spanning two generations and focusing on the lives of 7 different individuals both in the past and in the present, and as iconic as the 1990 miniseries is, it never really had the freedom to do the novel much justice. So how does Muschietti's film hold up? Well I am delighted, and relieved to report that IT  is a solid adaptation that manages to capture both the atmosphere, and more importantly the emotional heart of King's novel.

The film follows the Losers Club as kids, updating the events from 1958 to 1989, essentially one half of the novel. Straight off the bat in the opening scene, Muschietti lets us know that this is not a kids film, as we watch Georgie Denborough (Jackson Robert Scott) encounter Pennywise (Bill Skarsgard) for the first time. It's a suspenseful and surprisingly terrifying scene where director Andy Muschietti proves that this will be a darker adaptation of IT much more in line with the novel. Muschietti creates this incredible atmosphere of unease throughout, utilising distorted camera angles and Benjamin Wallfisch's brooding score. It gives this sense of ever present terror, much like in the novel, that evil is always there, lurking and ready to pounce. Some of the jump scares however do feel a bit predictable. The first half of the film follows each of the Loser's individual encounters with IT and its many forms, and after a while it does feel a bit repetitive and formulaic. While there are some genuinely scary moments, I feel as though there were other moments when the jump scares just couldn't cut it.

That's not to say the film wasn't scary however, the fear factor is really turned up to 11 when Bill Skarsgard gets the opportunity to showcase his talents as Pennywise. Skarsgard is phenomenal in the role, never attempting to mimic Tim Curry's performance and truly making Pennywise his own. His version of Pennywise is much more unhinged and animalistic, and his onscreen presence is enough to send shivers down one's spine. While there is some CGI used to make Pennywise feel that little bit more unnatural at times, I feel like the real highlight of Skarsgards performance is that thing he does with his eyes, you'll know it when you see it and it's not CGI, just pure Skarsgard. He's sure to act as the nightmare fuel for a new generation of cinemagoers. He's not the only form that IT takes however, he has a number of other tricks up his sleeve that will be both familiar and new to fans of the book. Some of the most unsettling are the disgusting leper and an eerie painting, as if Pennywise wasn't terrifying enough as it is.

Along with Skarsgard, all of the child actors are excellent in their respective roles, bringing to life their novel counterparts with ease. Jaeden Lieberher plays Bill Denborough, the stuttering leader of the Losers who is motivated to find and kill IT after his little brother Georgie goes missing. Right from the opening scene we empathise with Bill as it's clear that he has a lot of love for his little brother, made all the more believable by Lieberher's very natural performance. Stranger Things breakout star Finn Wolfhard takes on the role of Richie Tozier, the foul mouthed joker of the group who has some of the films best one-liners. Jeremy Ray Taylor steps into the shoes of Ben Hanscom, the new kid in Derry who joins the Losers. I always found him to be the novels most likeable character and Taylor's charming performance makes it the same case in the film as well. There's a running joke between him and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis) about his guilty pleasure for New Kids on the Block so look out for that. Speaking of Beverly, Sophia Lillis is fantastic as her and gives a multi-layered performance that perfectly reflects her character in the novel. When she is with the Losers, she is the cool girl with whom they are all infatuated, however, beneath her cool exterior Beverly is a very troubles character, and Lillis plays both sides of Beverly excellently. All of the actors share a very natural and believable chemistry, allowing us to get behind them and empathise when necessary. I can't think of more perfect casting choices.

While IT may not always be as scary as it could be, it manages to do what many King adaptations cannot, and that's capture the essence of the source material. If Stand By Me is the most faithful King adaptation, then this is the Stand by Me of horror. Childhood is a major theme of King's novel, not only the lighthearted innocence of it all, but also the vulnerability, and both sides of that coin are represented here. We watch the Losers bond together, joking around and playing in the Barrens, but we also get a glimpse of the darker side as seen in King's novel, the fears and the conflict. Along with the supernatural threat of IT, the Losers are also faced with a gang of brutal bullies and the adults of Derry who are seemingly oblivious to the strange events at hand. Each one has their own personal demons to face as well as IT, and there are certain times when it feels as though some of the adults are more terrifying than Pennywise himself. IT genuinely feels like it is a Stephen King adaptation, immersed in that feeling of childhood nostalgia that King writes so well, the film is both faithful and respectful to its source material. Everything feels so accurately portrayed, not just the characters, but the town of Derry itself and the sinister house on Neibolt Street are exactly how you'd picture them when reading the book. It is certain to please both fans of the novel and newcomers to Kings work as well.

Despite falling victim to some of the usual horror tropes, IT is an excellent film that manages to bring to life that sense of childhood nostalgia from the novel so perfectly. All of the characters feel so real and they share a very natural chemistry together, each of them have their own personal issues that provide an added layer of depth, allowing us to further empathise with them. Bill Skarsgards Pennywise is one of the most terrifying creatures to grace horror cinema in recent years, bringing this incredibly unsettling onscreen presence to the character. Not only does it manage to capture that sense of sheer dread from the novel, but also the emotional heart and that accurate depiction of childhood that King is so talented at writing. Overall, IT (or IT: Chapter One) is a solid adaptation of Stephen King's novel that is sure to issue in a new generation of fear to younger cinemagoers. Roll on Chapter 2. 

The Do's and Don't's of Jump Scares

Ah the jump scare. For decades, jump scares have been used in horror cinema to shock the audience and provide them with a momentary sense of terror that will leave them screaming in their seats. They are one of the easiest ways to scare your audience and are by far the most frequently used method of scare tactics in horror cinema. However, jump scares are not always as effective as they should be. Nowadays, jump scares aren't as effective as they used to be, and people tend to simply dismiss them as cheap and lazy ways of frightening the audience. Now I'll admit, I'd much rather a suspense-laden horror film than one riddled with jump scares, to me suspense is just more effective in the long run. However, just because jump scares have become excessively used and are often predictable doesn't mean that they're all bad. If done correctly, jump scares can be highly effective even upon multiple viewings, but in order to achieve such an impact, one needs to follow a few ground rules first..

Suspense, suspense, suspense..

A jump scare without suspense is like telling somebody the punch line before telling the joke, it simply does not work. Many film makers think they can get away with throwing any old jump scare onto the screen without any build up, and 9 times out of 10 it just doesn't work out at all. However, a steady build of tension can do wonders for a jump scare and can really heighten the impact by the time it comes around. I'm going to take an example from Alfred Hitchcock's 1960 masterpiece, Psycho. 

In one scene, an investigator names Arbogast (Martin Balsam) enters the residence of Norman Bates and his mother to question them about the disappearance of a young woman named Marion Crane (Janet Leigh). When Arbogast enters the Bates residence it is empty, and the foyer is shrowded in shadow. As Bernard Herrmann's sinister score slowly begins to build, Arbogast climbs the stairwell, while a door on the first floor can be seen slowly edging open. Then, as soon as Arbogast reaches the landing, we cut to an aerial shot where a mysterious figure comes out from behind the door and stabs Arbogast to death, all while that iconic piece of music plays. That scene scared me shitless the first time I watched it and even now it still manages to send chills down my spine, no matter how many times I've watched it. Hitchcock's excellent sense of direction, paired with Herrmann's chilling score and just the right amount of pacing make this one of the most terrifying scenes in horror history. Even now that the film is almost 60 years old, it is still more effective than a lot of modern jump scares because of the sheer attention Hitchcock pays to building suspense. It shows that with the right amount of tension and perfect timing, jump scares can be highly effective.

Never Force It

The problem with a lot of modern horror films is that they disregard the suspense and try to force in as many jump scares as possible. It's one of the reasons why I'm so opposed to found footage films as it's so easy for them to throw anything in front of the camera for a cheap scare. Throwing something in front of the camera like that just isn't scary any more, sure, you might jump of you're watching it in the cinema, but once the credits have rolled you will forget all about it. I'm going to use an example, that's not actually found footage, the Sinister films.

I really dislike the Sinister films, while they do have some good ideas, I feel as though they are too reliant on predictable and mundane jump scares. The finest example comes at a scene in the first film where Ellison (Ethan Hawke), climbs up to the attic to find a group of children watching projections of the grizzly home movies previously found by him. The camera lingers on this shot of the children watching the videos for several seconds, making it obvious that something is about to happen. Low and behold, the films antagonist Bughul sticks his head into the frame from somewhere giving the audience a cheap scare. It's a perfect example of a lazy jump scare with no thought or desire to be creative. It's literally the equivalent of someone jumping in front of you saying 'boo', it might make you jump a little  until you realise how stupid it was. To make things worse, the EXACT same jump scare is used in the closing scene of the unwanted sequel Sinister 2. Again, the camera lingers on a shot of something before Bughul pops his face into the frame again. It's bad enough that this lazy method was used once before, but the fact that the filmmakers thought it would be okay to use it again in the sequel, and get away with it, is truly baffling. It's a prime example of how NOT to do a jump scare and one of the reasons why jump scares get such a bad reputation.

Get Creative

The fact that jump scares have been around for so long means that by now, it's hard to do something that we haven't already seen. Many filmmakers opt to simply replicate other methods of jump scares from previous films, often garnering mixed results. However, some filmmakers dare to do something different with their jump scares, and a prime example is James Wan. Wan is one of the most prolific horror filmmakers of the 21st century, spawning franchises such as Saw and The Conjuring, two defining horror franchises of the last 20 years. Wans films are often familiar in their story and subject matter, however, when it comes to crafting a good jump scare, the Australian director continues to prove that he has a few tricks up his sleeve.

I'm going to use an example from his film Insidious 2, while not the best horror sequel ever made, it certainly had its fair share of inventive jump scares. My personal favourite comes when Renai (Rose Byrne) comes under attack from the supernatural forces that plague her home while she is home alone. The tension slowly builds as strange things gradually start to happen, we catch glimpses of a mysterious woman in white before doors start slamming, furniture starts flying, and thing really start to get heated. Renai finally makes her way to the sitting room where the tension has been turned right up to 11, we know something is about to happen, but we don't know what or where it's going to come from. The camera pans around Renai who turns around, just as the camera moves enough to reveal that ghostly woman standing there who screams at Renai and strikes her across the room. Here, James Wan shows that he is trying to catch the audience off guard with his jump scares. Often we can predict where the ghost or the killer is going to jump at us from, but here Wan attempts to make that a bit more uncertain than usual. His penchant for crafting unique and effective jump scares can be seen in the first Insidious, as well as both Conjuring films too.

Everything in Moderation

Too much of anything can be bad, and that certainly applies for jump scares. Even if they are well-crafted and come with the right amount of tension, if there are too many of them they are bound to eventually get tedious. A film cannot rely solely on jump scares if it wants to truly be scary, instead it must incorporate a number of methods to keep the audience on the edge of their seats. Even films like Insidious and The Conjuring, that have some truly inventive jump scares, can become a bit monotonous towards the end, 50 jump scares later. 

One of the scariest films of the past couple of years is The Witch, and that has very little jump scares at all. So what does it use instead, you may ask? First of all, suspense is the key. Usually suspense can be created by combining an eerie piece of music with the onscreen imagery and direction. This can often result in the audience becoming increasingly unsettled without anything even happening. What The Witch does, is that it builds this tension up considerably before quickly cutting to something else, usually a loud noise. It's an interesting method of jump scare in that nothing scary actually happens, yet because the tension was so high, it tricks you into thinking that you were in for something truly horrifying. Just like in Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, the editing is one of the films scariest qualities.

One more thing that can either enhance or replace a jump scare is imagery. One of the strong points of the recent Annabelle: Creation was its fantastic use of imagery. Sure, it had a lot of jump scares too, but the fact that it also relied a bit on the creepy imagery made it more than just a one trick pony. There is one particular shot that I mentioned in my review of the film, where we first catch a glimpse of the Annabelle doll. Her pale face and dark sunken eyes loom out of the shadowy room in which she sits, staring down our protagonist. We expect something to happen yet..nothing does, but overall the emphasis on imagery is much more effective. 

Basically, jump scares aren't the only way you can scare your audience, you can use the, but use them moderately while experimenting with other methods in the meantime. 

The Lewton Bus Dilemma

In 1942, a little film named Cat People was released, directed by Jacques Tourneur and produced by Val Lewton. The film has become well known for the fact that it never reveals its monster and instead relies on shadows and sound to create an imposing offscreen beast. In one infamous scene, Jane Randolph's character Alice is walking along at night when she soon realises that she just might be being followed. She begins to walk quicker down the shadowy street, gradually quickening her pace into almost a run, before finally stopping at a lamp post. Just when you think her assailant is about to strike, it doesn't, and instead a bus pulls in loudly beside her. This method of building suspense before breaking it with something harmless has become known as the Lewton Bus, after produced Val Lewton. It's a false jump scare method of sorts, that still manages to make the audience jump despite not being actually scary. It's a clever method that subverts the usual jump scare, and when used well can be really effective, however, over the years the Lewton Bus has transformed into something a lot less unsettling and rather ironic.. the cat scare.

Basically the cat scare is the same idea only using a cat instead of a bus, and while it is sometimes effective, the cat scare has gradually transformed into literally throwing a cat into the frame even before any tension is built. While films like Alien have done justice to the cat scare, other films seem to literally pelt a character with a cat during any scene that requires a cheap, yet harmless jump scare. The cat scare is more common in more family oriented films such as Hocus Pocus and The Mummy, which is fair enough as it is a harmless way of making the kids jump, but even six year olds can only take so many cat scares before even they become immune. 

The Lewton Bus, and cat scares can be very effective when used properly, but simply throwing a cat into the frame just won't cut it.

As you can see, jump scares aren't always a bad thing when they're done right. Many films make the mistake of being plain lazy with their jump scares or using too many to the point that they lose their effect. The problem with a lot of modern horror films is that they feel that this is sufficient and that it audiences will respond well to it. However, even the more easily pleased audience members have begun to lose interest in cheap jump scares that lack any creativity. To craft a successful jump scare, you need to first build tension, then, when the time comes to hit your audience with the punch line, make it count. Don't do the obvious, make them think you're about to take a left before taking a sharp right. As well as that, it's important to remember to use jump scares in moderation, there are plenty of other ways to keep your audiences unnerved, make use of them as well. It's clear that jump scares are not always a bad thing, they just require a bit of creativity if they want to catch the audience off guard.