As many of you know, I'm not typically one for contemporary horror. Many of the jump-scare tricks startle me but don't stick with me when the film is done (James Wan, master of the startle), and many of the gorefest slasher outings (which seem to be falling out of fashion thankfully) aren't scary as much as they are gross and cruel, IMO.

Here is a horror movie for everybody. Jennifer Kent has made a fucking wonderful film that scared the shit out of me. I'm writing this with goosebumps.

Why is it so good?
1. This woman can DIRECT. Every shot is beautifully composed for maximum suspense. Every edit is slightly off-putting in the best way. The off-screen sound is masterfully executed. She keeps the screen dark and shadowy, almost surreal, without ever making the film dim or boring to the eye. Simply put, she's instantly one of the best directors of the year.
2. The performances by the mother and child both deserve year-end recognition. Both easily could have fallen into cliche (the creepy child with a discipline problem, in particular). Essie Davis in a fair world gets an Oscar nomination. Both characters are marvelously written (also by Kent) and the actors take full advantage of the material at their disposal.
3. The concept is simple and fairly linear but wonderfully executed. A depressed woman finds a strange book on her son's bookshelf, and the creature in the book seems to start lurking in the house. The book itself is creepier than anything similar (the tape in The Rang and the films in Sinister fail to compare), with incredible pop-up pages and bizarre and memorable illustration. Even the font of the book is creepy. Of course, she finds that the strange goings-on are harder to get rid of than she thought, and the scares... good God, the scares. Even when they aren't traditional "look out!" scares, just scenes of her hanging out during the day are suspenseful enough to freak you out (the production design of this house is KILLER).
4. The extended metaphor, which I won't spoil. This isn't a simple "fantastical creature/serial killing spirit" film like so many others. It goes deeper than that. Which makes the film that much more memorable and admirable.

This is available on DirectTV on Demand, and it comes out in theaters this month. I will not see it in theaters, as I am a giant pussy. But I will buy a ticket. It deserves your business. If you want to see a great film, horror or otherwise, go see this. And if you're a horror fan, I imagine you are in for a treat.

Here is a trailer for the intrigued: http://youtu.be/szaLnKNWC-U I would go see it blind, as the trailer, like most horror trailers, reveals a few scares (which are always better in the context of the film). But if you need incentive, there you are.

Good looks on the review... really tempted to check out that trailer though, hmm...

... then again, I'm anti-trailer across the board. I don't even like seeing IMAGES.

I got excited as soon as I heard their accents... American horror sensibilities rarely capture the atmosphere for truly scary shit.

Getting a big group together for this too... can't wait for the 28th.

This has been on GOTR radar for a while, so I'll definitely be checking it out.

My wife is a horror fanatic. I will thank you if this impresses her.

wanting to see this movie. Finally saw it. Glad it wasn't half as scary to me as conjuring or ring, yet a bit disappointed it wasn't quite as entertaining as I hoped. Still relatively entertaining tho. After the previous week's epic string of Locke, Under the Skin, and Gone Girl, the next movie was doomed to dim in comparison.

I'd still recommend it. Well done.

Shit was okay. It wasn't "scary" as much as it was a thrill ride. I wanted to beat the shit outta that little kid. Also, I can't wait to see what this director will do next.

>Shit was okay. It wasn't "scary" as much as it was a thrill
>ride. I wanted to beat the shit outta that little kid. Also, I
>can't wait to see what this director will do next.


well you know niggas be here. always hyping up certain titles yet clearly not respecting the genre in which they're in.

Folk love this movie. But scariest film in years? now we're deciding what "Contemporary horror" is...OK

but, Jennifer Kent IS someone to watch. She's doing a period revenge film about a convict woman in Tasmania during the 1920s I believe.

As for her film being called "feminist horror", that I dig. And I'm glad folks are picking up on the themes in the movie that are making it work as a whole (depression, abandonment, loss, etc.)

Kent is on my radar and one to watch.

>>Shit was okay. It wasn't "scary" as much as it was a thrill
>>ride. I wanted to beat the shit outta that little kid. Also,
>I
>>can't wait to see what this director will do next.
>
>
>well you know niggas be here. always hyping up certain titles
>yet clearly not respecting the genre in which they're in.
>
>Folk love this movie. But scariest film in years? now we're
>deciding what "Contemporary horror" is...OK
>

Dawg, people here and in my guild hyped it up to be something it's just not. It's a great horror film but no way is it the scariest movie in years.

FOH

>but, Jennifer Kent IS someone to watch. She's doing a period
>revenge film about a convict woman in Tasmania during the
>1920s I believe.
>
>As for her film being called "feminist horror", that I dig.
>And I'm glad folks are picking up on the themes in the movie
>that are making it work as a whole (depression, abandonment,
>loss, etc.)
>
>Kent is on my radar and one to watch.

Yea I noticed that too. She handles the themes really well. But overall I really like her visual style.

>well you know niggas be here. always hyping up certain titles
>yet clearly not respecting the genre in which they're in.
>
>Folk love this movie. But scariest film in years? now we're
>deciding what "Contemporary horror" is...OK

I'm not deciding what "contemporary horror" is. You define it how you want. I'm defining it as "films that can be defined as horror that came out over the last several years." I'm no expert on the particulars, nor would I claim to be.

But I've seen some James Wan joints, some of those haunted house joints, and some of the gorefest joints over the past several years. I try to see the ones that would qualify as "major." They all successfully startled me. The Babadook made me want to go to sleep with the lights on. So, out of all contemporary films that can loosely qualify as existing within the horror genre, this was the best one to me. By far.

I watched it a second time. Same result. Same goosebumps. Hiding my eyes even though I knew what was happening.

I'm sorry that it didn't scare you the way it scared me. I was really hopeful that we could all agree that this movie was outstanding in every way, otherwise I wouldn't have propped it up the way that I did. I could talk about all of the things I love about this movie for hours. (And I have.) And I would still love to, especially with my friends who are scary movie fanatics.

I put this next to Blair Witch and the first Paranormal Activity in the category of "movies that successfully freaked me the fuck out." Probably the only three movies in my lifetime that have made me feel that way. I love it that much. And honestly, because those are found footage style and this one is simply sleek brilliant filmmaking, there's plenty about this film that I love even more than the other two.

This is my opinion. It's neither genre disrespect nor intentional hyperbole (I think you'd agree I rarely engage in hyperbole on PTP solely to stir the pot... I'm not one of those). It's just how I felt, because I was so damn excited about how the great the movie is. And I still am.

Don't get hung up on my opinion about how scary the film is. Get hung up on how fucking brilliant the filmmaking is. Let's focus on that and talk about that. That will be more fun than the inevitable "these are scarier"/"no, I don't think so" back and forths.

I can't tell people what scares them more, this or The Conjuring. This scared me more. By a lot. Different things scare different people. And a fucking brilliantly written/directed/acted/edited film scared the piss out of me.

Just didn't work for me. Everything leading up to it was phenomenal. I just felt let down there. Still a beautiful movie.

there were way too many unnecessary horror movie cliches

-roaches coming out of the wall
-flickering lights
-vomiting black/blood
-being possessed and tied down looking like the exorcist
-dog of course getting killed
-kid getting pulled through the air up the stairs like paranormal activity
-doors opening by themselves
-randomly graphically pulling out her bloody tooth

etc...it all just went on too long for me and took away from some of the really great/powerful scenes inbetween, like the dynamic switching from the kid being uncontrollable to being afraid of her, her yelling at him that she wished he died instead of the dad...but I guess it wouldn't have been a "horror" movie without that other stuff.

He was just an irritating brat and I for one didn't give two fucks about him because of it. There was nothing charming or lovable about him, and you need him to be something more than an annoying head case if you to want to earn my concern for him.

Conversely, mom turned in a hell of a performance and she's the sole reason this worked. The Babadook itself was whatever to me. It wasn't particularly inventive to me and just played like a generic monster to be honest, since there was nothing to ground him into anything plausible or relatable on any level. I did enjoy the way he tied so closely to mom and her emotional state, but that wasn't enough to make him/her/it all that interesting as a character.

I think the boy was the key to pulling this off and that was such a failure it brought the whole thing down significantly.

Those high pitch brat screams about made me wish the Babadook would fucking devour him lol

... and a character you don't like.

For the first, say, 3/4s of the movie, you're not supposed to like him or root for him. You're seeing him through the eyes of his mom, to whom he's an absolute nightmare. That's the point. And, in that regard, it's an insanely good and natural performance for an actor so young.

Now, the argument about making the child so annoying making the film less effective? A totally valid complaint and argument. I would obviously disagree personally, but I would absolutely get if someone said they simply don't like watching a kid that annoying for so long and that a character like that has no place in a movie if the filmmakers want an audience to be absorbed. A totally understandable opinion.

I just take issue with saying the kid's performance wasn't good. I think the fact that so many in here vehemently hated the kid is testament to the fact that his performance captured the character beautifully.

Just my opinion, though.

>I just take issue with saying the kid's performance wasn't
>good.

I just suspended enough disbelief to enjoy/hate him. But I'm not gonna shit on a 6 year old. The part was just written well enough that he did what he had to do.

Good on him

I've seen some kids with chops though and just didn't feel like this kid fit the bill personally

... I can't point you to many performances by a 6-year-old in cinematic history that are asked to do more. I thought he was fantastic.

Though I'm sensing in this point that I liked it more than the majority. Which is fine.

.

>... and a character you don't like.
>
>For the first, say, 3/4s of the movie, you're not supposed to
>like him or root for him. You're seeing him through the eyes
>of his mom, to whom he's an absolute nightmare. That's the
>point. And, in that regard, it's an insanely good and natural
>performance for an actor so young.


Disagree completely. The notion that "I'm not supposed" to like him doesn't really hold up. He's being haunted by a monster, and for that reason alone I should care. I should be horrified at mom's downward spiral of resentment and disdain toward him, but I wasn't. I get that they were showing the behaviors that drove her to that place, but they gave us nothing at all- like, at all, absolutely zero- to make him feel sympathetic or, bare minimum, someone a bit more nuanced.

Actually, we got that briefly with his obnoxious cousin and it was only because she was such a vile, soulless brat that he was remotely likable in that exchange.

Objectively speaking, I felt a brief twinge of empathy for him with the whole "you don't have a dad, nobody wants you!" thing, but that ended when he got his revenge and pushed her out of the house. I didn't fault him for it, but the creative direction would have been better served by him being left alone and crying in the wake of her abuse. Instead, he was a Big Boy, perfectly capable of handling it by himself. So the one window they had to give him some depth was blown.

I personally found his performance cheap and irritating. I was very aware he was acting, and didn't see it as "natural" in the slightest.


>Now, the argument about making the child so annoying making
>the film less effective? A totally valid complaint and
>argument. I would obviously disagree personally, but I would
>absolutely get if someone said they simply don't like watching
>a kid that annoying for so long and that a character like that
>has no place in a movie if the filmmakers want an audience to
>be absorbed. A totally understandable opinion.


but that sort of underscores my previous point; giving me a reason to like/care/relate/worry for him as a human being would have accomplished this in droves. The concept was good and well but the one element I felt they needed to make it all work was the boy. If I care about him, then the Babadook scares me mor. The character becomes less generic, more frightening, more worrisome because I'
m worried about what happens to the kid. If I care about him, mom's downward spiral is more horrifying because I care about the implications for her son. If I don't care about the boy, the rest barely matters.

>I just take issue with saying the kid's performance wasn't
>good. I think the fact that so many in here vehemently hated
>the kid is testament to the fact that his performance captured
>the character beautifully.

I'm a pro wrestling fan. Much as people like to hate on it for being fake (GASP! OMG, REALLY? But I digress, lol), there's an art to it. There's a whole psychology to it. I like the good guys, known as baby faces, but I also like the bad guys, known as heels. I appreciate a good heel because it all falls apart without good heels. There are various qualities that make for a great baby face or a great heel. Some heels, say.... CM Punk's title run as a heel a couple years ago, generate heat with brutal honesty and an air that he knows he's the guy you not only want beat up, but maybe even want to be. There's an art to getting people to hate you for the right reasons. That's good heat. That's the sort of heat that makes people want to pay to see that guy get his ass kicked by a baby face, while elevating the baby face in the process. It's this dynamic that makes for an annoying program.

Other heels generate what is known as "Go away heat", the kind of heat and hatred that isn't generated by an artfully crafted persona, but by sheer hatred and annoyance. Michael Cole's run as a heel commentator a few years back is a great example. It became so over the top, so overbearing, soooooooo fucking annoying that you don't really want to see him get beat up, you just want him GONE. Whatever. However. Just GONE.

In this case, I needed something to generate genuine concern for the boy in order to tie everything else together.You're probably correct in that the intent was to make us annoyed by the kid so that we might relate to mom more, but to me that was a miscalculation. The kid can stay annoying and grate on my nerves, but if they would have given me some reason to care for him everything else would have been elevated as a result. As it stands, I wouldn't have cared if Babadook ate him.

>Just my opinion, though.

Well of course :)

I had the opposite feeling across the board, but I get it.

I at once felt bad for the mom for having to deal with him and bad for him because of his impossible family situation. There's just no winning with a wickedly depressed mother who resents your existence and no father.

But I understand your POV. If you don't have even an iota of feeling for him, it's tough to engage in the film. Totally understood.

The kid had me wanting him to die in the first half of the movie, which is what they were aiming to do so good job with that.

These clams on how its one of the scariest movies though had me a little bit more hyped for it than I should have been. I'm a horror head and wasn't really shook by it at all.

Suspenseful as hell, not very scary though.

if it were playing anywhere near my zip code, kafjka;sljfes;ljeslfhas;fklj


Doesn't seem to be within 40 miles near me

>if it were playing anywhere near my zip code,
>kafjka;sljfes;ljeslfhas;fklj
>
>
>Doesn't seem to be within 40 miles near me


you got Cable? Rent it on VOD...that's how I saw it.

We cover it on Get Out The Room which will go up tomorrow, but lets just say it was well received by us.

I'm definitely gonna check it out.

Pretty dang cool.

>... I can't point you to many performances by a 6-year-old in
>cinematic history that are asked to do more. I thought he was
>fantastic.

Was he better than most at that age? Sure. He just didn't always seem "focused" to me. Which doesn't matter, he's a kid and I feel gross for critiquing it like that. Maybe I just don't like actors that young.

>Though I'm sensing in this point that I liked it more than the
>majority. Which is fine.

Oh, I liked it a lot. It was easily one of the best horror films I've seen in years. I just didn't like the ending. But the tension that was created in some of those scenes were masterful.

Took me a few minutes to process wtf I just watched once it ended, but the monster metaphor came together. It was a physical manifestation of their grief from the death of the father...the more they tried to suppress it and not talk about it, the stronger the monster's presence became, until she faces it at the end and finally "owns" it by keeping it in the basement. I still don't know wtf that magic trick at the end was about though, lol.

The creepiest moments were when the mother first started getting possessed...the look in her eyes, the shit she was watching on TV, pulling the tooth out, etc. Creepy visuals. I definitely think the mother should get some kind of recognition for her performance, the kid was mostly comic relief.

Anyone who has a problem w/the ending, I encourage you to take a second look from a metaphorical perspective, it just might change your ENTIRE view of the film.

Yup, Fox Searchlight and a few of these smaller studios need to give Kent whatever dollars she needs to make her next films...PERIOD. Such a fantastic interview.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/12/meet-jennifer-kent-director-of-the-babadook.html?

A Woman Directed the Scariest Horror Movie of the Year, Maybe of the Decade
By Laura Parker

You know you've made it when the director of The Exorcist declares your first feature the most terrifying film he's ever seen. Earlier this week, Oscar winner William Friedkin offered to host a screening of Australian horror film The Babadook after observing the film's limited U.S. release.

Since playing at Sundance earlier this year, the debut feature of Australian writer-director Jennifer Kent has earned near-unanimous critical acclaim. Much like The Exorcist, The Babadook revolves around an unspeakable horror visiting an ordinary suburban family: a widow, Amelia (played by Essie Davis) and her troubled son, Samuel, who turns out to be telling the truth about the monster in his picture book coming to life.

Critics have praised the film for playfully subverting horror-movie clichés while intelligently addressing the nature of childhood trauma. In his Times review, A. O. Scott addressed Kent's ability to "pull Polanskian strings of helplessness and paranoia," while Anthony Lane, writing in The New Yorker, issued this startling decree: "Let a law be passed, requiring all horror films to be made by female directors." The law, Lane argued, would "restore horror to its rightful place as a chamber of secrets, ripe for emotional inquisition." (Stephen King also joined the chorus, calling the film "highly disturbing and highly recommended.")

On Monday, The Babadook was voted best first feature at the 2014 New York Film Critics Circle Awards.

So, who is Jennifer Kent, and how did she manage to make such an original horror film?

You used to be an actor. How did you get into filmmaking?
I'd always done both, but when I went to acting school they discouraged me to do anything except acting. So I put writing and directing aside. I did a lot of theater, particularly Shakespeare, which is a great way to learn about story. But I got bored very quickly. Something about the idea of self-promotion bugged me. I didn't like the focus to be on me. Also, truth be told, I didn't love people telling me what to do. With acting, you're only as good as the story you're performing. I wanted to go back to having more autonomy, and telling my own stories.

The Babadook is your first feature film. How did you know what would work and what wouldn't?
I have written a few others, but they were too ambitious. This is the first one I could actually develop. The process was quick: I wrote a draft, and then left Australia to go to Amsterdam, to a place called Binger Filmlab, to develop it for six months. Amsterdam has a history of fostering unique visions, and I really wanted to follow my instincts on this. Sometimes, , things tend to be done by the book.

I read you called up Lars von Trier, way before you had even written a film, and asked if you could come and watch him work.
It was around 2001, when he was doing Dogville in Sweden. I just sent him an email — nothing business-y, just a very earnest note in which I confessed I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than go to film school and asked him if I could come and watch him work. He doesn't normally let people on set, but I got a reply from his assistant telling me that I could come for one day. But they were clear I couldn't just stand around doing nothing — I had to work. So I flew to Sweden and saw the producer, and I was allowed to stay on. I ended up doing a lot of shit-kicking jobs in the directing department, but I didn't mind. I just wanted to watch a great director at work, to see how he does it. The biggest thing I learned from him was courage. He’s stubborn, and he does what he wants. I needed to see those things up close. And also to see that he was a human being, not some god. It was the best film school I could ever have.

How did the idea for The Babadook come about?
I have a friend who's a single mother, whose son was traumatized by this monster figure that he thought he saw everywhere in the house. So I thought, "What if this thing was real, on some level?" So I made Monster about that idea. But I couldn't leave it alone. I kept coming back to it. And that led to The Babadook.

Were you influenced by any particular horror films or directors?
I continue to watch modern horror films, despite the constant disappointment. I don’t think a lot of the filmmakers making horror now know its worth, or realize the potential of the genre. Just because it's a horror film doesn't mean it can't be deep. I think a lot of filmmakers who make horror now go in with dubious motives — money, predominantly. They want to make a film that will feel like a theme-park ride, and ultimately make a lot of money.

But horror is a pure form of cinema. I think there are some modern-day filmmakers our there who understand that. The films that will stand the test of time are the ones that have depth — Tomas Alfredson's Let the Right One In, for example, or Honeymoon and A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night .

What do you think about Anthony Lane's opinion that a law should be instated that requires all horror films to be directed by women? Do you think female directors are able to bring a certain something to the genre that eludes male directors?

I think there’s some truth to that, but we can’t dismiss the masters — Polanski, Lynch, del Toro. They're all men. They're all capable of writing complex, beautiful characters. I take comments as a compliment, but I gently challenge him back. Regardless of my gender, I think I made a commitment to make my characters feel real. Male directors are just as capable of doing that, but perhaps that hasn't happened as often in the horror genre in the last decade, which is perhaps why Anthony said that.

I never think of my gender when I'm working. But, while I'm not bound or ruled by it, I think it might influence the output, which is what I think happened in The Babadook. It's different, and I think people find that refreshing.

Amelia, your main character, is also a pretty atypical horror-film protagonist.
I always wanted to make this film from her perspective, rather than a horror-movie perspective. The horror really comes from her loss and grief. In earlier drafts, she was so nice and pure and never did anything wrong. It really pissed me off — this wasn't really how a person in her situation would behave. The Amelia in the film lies. She's not a good mother. But that makes her human. For his part, Sam is an annoying, irritating little kid — but you would be too if you had a nebulous monster threatening you.

I wasn’t interested in making likable characters, something we don't see a lot of in movies, particularly American ones. I think horror is the perfect genre to make flawed characters. It's built for that. Not everyone will agree, but then again I didn't make this film for everyone. I don't think that's really possible.

It's interesting because this film came out in Australia earlier this year, and while critics loved it, as they did here, no one really said much about it. The public didn't seem all that fazed.

Australians have this inbuilt aversion to seeing Australian films. They hardly ever get excited about their own stuff. We only tend to love things once everyone else confirms they're good. It's interesting, as an Australian, to observe this. I get really annoyed when I hear criticisms leveled at Australian filmmakers — we have some extraordinarily talented people in our country. The issue is cultural. It dates back to when Australia was first colonized — it's tall poppy syndrome at its best. We don't think a lot of our own output. Australian creatives have always had to go overseas to get recognition. I hope one day we can make a film or work of art and Australians can think it’s good regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.

I’m stubborn — I’m writing two more films set in Australia, and I also intend to make them here too. But I do not intend them for an Australian audience, just as The Babadook was not intended for an Australian audience.

What's next?
A vacation. That, and we're publishing a book based on the book in the film. I'm happy about that — we've furthered the story a little, and it works as a stand-alone piece. And I think after that, I'm done with The Babadook.

I'm currently working on two new films, and I've also been speaking to Warner Bros. about various future projects. I'm open to working on other people's scripts, but it has to be the right idea. I'm going to wait and see what comes along.

who didn't think the movie was that terrifying (plus a few people from the boards who said so above). We all agreed that the tone was a little off during most of the scary scenes...like there was too much unintentional humor or a poor decision to add intentional humor to an otherwise serious scene.

http://www.hitfix.com/news/william-friedkin-on-why-he-is-beating-the-drums-for-the-babadook-2

For a first time director to attract the attention of an icon of cinema is a heady experience. So imagine the feelings of Jennifer Kent, the Australian director of the new low budget, independent horror film The Babadook, when she saw this tweet from none other than William Friedkin, director of The Exorcist himself:


Since that first tweet, Friedkin has made beating the drums for The Babadook something of a personal cause celebre, continuing to champion it online and introducing a midnight screening last weekend at LA’s Vista Theater.

We spoke with William Friedkin by phone to find out how this little film had captured his attention.

HITFIX: How did you discover The Babadook?

WILLIAM FRIEDKIN: Well (British film critic) Mark Kermode, who is a friend of mine, wrote about it, gave it a very good review. So I tried to see it and I didn’t see that it was playing anywhere. It turns out that it was playing only at the Cinefamily and which is a great venue but they don’t really advertise. It’s a film society. But I also found out that it was streaming. So I saw it on my iPad. That’s the only way I’ve seen this film on my iPad with headphones.

Were you immediately blown away by it?

Yeah. It just pulled me right in. I thought it was fantastic, a great piece of work, an emotional film that transcends genre. And so I would see it again on the big screen and I plan to but I was so excited about it and I’m such a fan of good work wherever it comes from that I wrote about it. I don’t know Jennifer Kent. I don’t know anybody at IFC Midnight. I’m not involved in any way. I have no stake in the film.

You’ve been agitating on Twitter for them to get into more theaters.

Well, I just wrote one Tweet about that. And I understand that there’s an ad in today’s paper where they are expanding theaters. They’ve gotten more theatrical bookings. I don’t know why they didn’t initially. I found out from some friends in France that the film had played over there in July and created no stir. Now a lot of that is because the distributors don’t have any money to do anything. And so they put it out on video on demand or streaming as well. And that’s what happened here. The only place I could see this film was on streaming, on iTunes. I was shocked to see that.


You compared it to Psycho, Alien and Diabolique.

I don’t compare it. I simply say that it’s in a class with the best horror films I’ve ever seen.

Those are films were enormous successes financially, seen by millions over the years. Why do you think a film like this now is relegated to this indie circuit?

Well, it’s not made by a major studio. The other films were. Even Diabolique was made by a very successful French distributor who distributed it in America. But they had wide release possibilities which I take it IFC Midnight does not. But Alien was a release by 20th Century Fox that spent a lot of money to distribute it. Psycho was distributed by Paramount which spent a lot of money to distribute that. So they had wide releases and were therefore, because they were good, had the opportunity to become more financially successful. But I certainly don’t believe that financial success is the only judgment on a film. And it’s only in recent years that people have elevated a film like Psycho to the status of a classic. When it came out in 1960 it was pretty much roundly denounced as a scary film but not of much value. Because in those days the horror genre was really sort of a rock bottom, you know, fringe thing. And Hitchcock himself had never made a film as violent or terrifying as that. He’s the master of suspense but not violence, certainly not horror. Most of his films you’d have to say are not horror films, they’re suspense films and thrillers.

For the director of The Exorcist to say you’ve never seen a more terrifying film, those are powerful words. What made it so terrifying for you?

Well it’s the film itself, you know. It’s like recently the book that I wrote. (The Friedkin Connection). It was asked for by Harvard by the Houghton Library of Harvard which is, you know, one of the two most distinguished libraries in the United States. And they asked for my book for the permanent collection. They have the original works of John Keats and Samuel Johnson, Emily Dickinson, Henry James, Theodore Roosevelt. And my wife asked the director why they chose my book and she said, ‘Because I read it.’ And that’s why I am so enamored of The Babadook. Because I saw it. There are no categorical reasons. I think there are only three reasons it seems to me why most people go to see a film. And that’s for an emotional response, mainly which is to laugh, to cry or to be scared. And this delivers on the third. There are not a lot of films that frighten me. There are a lot of films that I’ve seen that I know intend to frighten me, but not a lot that do. And the horror genre has certainly not really been elevated over the years.

What do you think of the state of the horror genre these days?

Mostly repetitive, sort of copies of something else. All the exorcism films, all the vampire films, you know, there’s very little original stuff out there. There are a few. There was a great one a few years ago called Let the Right One In, which I thought was marvelous. I also really liked The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity 1. I thought these were very unique films that delivered. But I think that for the most part they’re not of that caliber. They’re mostly repetitive; imitators.

What made Babadook unique to you?

I just told you that: I saw it and it works. It delivers on what it’s supposed to. It’s not only the simplicity of the filmmaking and the excellence of the acting not only by the two leads but it’s the way the film works slowly but inevitably on your emotions. And you have to be completely shut down I think not to be at least very moved by it in a terrifying sense.

Like The Exorcist, to which it nods, The Babadook uses a child actor to terrifying effect. What can you say about directing children in horror films?

In many ways, it’s no different than directing an adult. What an actor is working from and what a director helps an actor to accomplish comes from sense memory which means, you know, every actor has had experiences in their life that have made them laugh or cry or be scared. And you try as a director to tap into those memories, those sense memories that will allow an actor to perform one of those emotions. So that’s how I worked with Linda Blair. It’s also how I worked with Gene Hackman, to produce a different set of emotions.

Is there a need to protect them from the terror that you’re creating around them?

With Linda Blair for example, I made it all a game for her. She never fully understood what she was doing, you know. A lot of the references were way out of her knowledge or experience. But she did have knowledge and experience of having been terrified or angry or happy. And I got to know her very well, as I try to get to know all the actors I work with including Matthew McConaughey and figure out what are their touchstones, their experiences that would allow them to be free enough to express these emotions. And that’s what this woman who directed The Babadook has done very successfully not only with the child but with all the actors.

How often do you get actually scared by a film?

I don’t know. But there are very few. I mentioned three. There are a handful of others, not many. The horror genre, you know, is so imitated it produces few original works. I believe that Psycho is an original work. There have been a lot of things that have followed in its wake that don’t have the same punch. The same is true of Alien. Alien actually scared me. Really disturbed me, you know, made me jump in the theatre. I think I might even have been more terrified of The Babadook had I seen it in a theater with an audience, but I didn’t.

What is the best way to watch a scary movie?

With a live audience in a theater. Cinema is really a group experience. It has to be. It’s like a play. A screenplay is a play and it’s meant to be shown in a theater with an audience.

Does the fact that movies these days, such as this one, that even don’t get much of a release can find followings and develop audiences on iTunes and Netflix give you hope?

I think there’s a factor there. There’s certainly a factor. I mean, I’m not a big fan of releasing a film in theaters as well as streaming or video on demand or anything like that. Not first runs. I’m very happy to see films that have played theatrically come out on a streaming service or obviously Blu-Ray but I don’t think it’s a good idea for first runs. But that’s what they did with The Babadook and I think but for the fact that a bunch of people like Stephen King have come out and praised it will help it achieve a decent theatrical release.

One scene has what seems a very specific nod to The Exorcist. How did you enjoy that?

I know what you’re talking about but, you know, what can I say. I don’t know Ms. Kent or what was in her mind. I don’t know. I don’t know if she ever saw The Exorcist. I can’t say that. It appears that that scene is similar but, you know, there’s very little that’s new under the sun and certainly if it was meant as some nod to The Exorcist, I have no problem with it. I think that might be one of the very few possible flaws in the film. That moment reaches further out for the supernatural when it appears that this story is largely very realistic or realistic with believable characters that we could meet in our own lives today, and that the effects in it are largely part of a woman’s breakdown and not necessarily the supernatural. It’s very much about, you know, this overburdened mother falling apart.

Before we let you go, can you tell us what you’re working on now?

I don’t want to announce anything but I will shortly. I can only tell you a couple of things in development. I’m developing a television series based on Killer Joe and developing another series based on To Live and Die in LA with MGM. And so that’s being written by Bobby Moresco who wrote Crash and Mystic River. And the Killer Joe pilot’s being written by Neil LaBute, the playwright. And I’m also writing and planning to direct a film about three years in the life of Mae West. With Bette Midler playing Mae West, in the years 1926 through 29. I’m writing the script and trying to direct it for HBO

Richard Rushfield is Editor in Chief of Hitfix (@richardrushfield)

https://mishkanyc.com/bloglin/2014/12/30/top-five-horror-films-of-2014-a-list-by-lyle-horowitz

I caught the Sacrament, didn't love it.

I felt like we all knew where it was going, but the way it played out was so closely tied to Jamestown just sort of left me a bit underwhelmed.

The town that dreaded sundown seemed better than I expected.

I'll reveal some of my favorites in a bit.

As a self proclaimed horror addict I have been having a harder and harder time tracking down good films.

Reminded me of del Toro's films (not Pacific Rim), where there are scares but then a compelling drama emerges from the regular horror tropes.

As a parent, to me the film was less about the monster part, more about a struggling mother slowly losing her shit. I bet a lot of single parents (especially single mothers) could relate to it. The Babadook just seemed like a metaphor for all the stress, grief and frustration that was breaking her down. In the end, she just learns to live with it.

it is a wonderfully constructed movie. beautifully shot, beautifully acted. and, especially as someone who has no interest in having kids, i was totally on board with the sleep deprivation subtext.

but it went from a pretty creepy, legitimately scary, will-she-won't-she vibe to a sub-standard monster movie and then just abruptly (and disappointingly) ended.

it's definitely not as good as everyone's saying just because the resolution is handled so lamely, but it's worth a watch just for the build up.

The "extended metaphor" you speak off jumped out at me too quickly and thus reduced the Babadook's ability to frighten me.

once you realize the babadook isn't real, it becomes completely pointless to carry on as if it's any kind of threat (i.e., the 2nd half of the movie)

>once you realize the babadook isn't real, it becomes
>completely pointless to carry on as if it's any kind of threat
>(i.e., the 2nd half of the movie)










While im all up for my scary creatures, there's nothing like a homicidal human edge to possible carnage a la the Shining.

The Babadook not being a "monster" made it all the scarier for me.

They prolly already have a script.

>

fyi
***************************************
rosemary's babydaddy
***************************************

Just saw this again...it's 10x scarier than I remembered. I must have dozed off or something. And it's definitely more than just a horror movie...puts "It Follows" to shame.

See it...ppl are cysing the shit out of it in the thread, curious to get your opinion.

I think you'll enjoy tremendously.

I'll check later this week tho.

It has to be the most sinister prop in horror movie history. Artistic genius.

I get severe goosebumps every time. The design with the score with Davis' performance with the style of the edits... just brilliant filmmaking on display.

anytime

>It has to be the most sinister prop in horror movie history.
>Artistic genius.

WHERE have all the great "scary"/horror films gone.

this was well done but not scary. same with It Follows.

maybe I just can't be shaken but these kind of movies anymore, but shit, even the jump scares just have me sitting there laughing.

* grumpy old man rant over *

Just edge of your seat stuff, and one of the best lead performances I've seen in a horror flick. And I really dug the ending.

I didn't find it scary, but I did like it

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

The script kept losing my attention and interest with the characters and the story. Afterwards I just couldn't follow it anymore.

I love horror the most when they're willing to bend the classic tropes the genre has established over the years. This was a horror movie where the monster lives on, but not as we expected. The theme of latent grief is also deeply relatable and resonates more than your typical horror movie.

Is it as scary as some people had hoped? No, but that's fine. There's a million horror movies out there that aren't really scare. Scream, Cabin in the Woods and Cabin Fever are in my personal pantheon of horror greats and they're not scary in the slightest (The Descent, 28 Days Later and Funny Games would be on the other side of that spectrum).

With that said, I thought The Babadook was plenty scary. I loved the not-quite-jump-cut style of editing that showed the passage of time. I loved the sense of pervading dread as Amelia's psychosis deepened. I loved the disparate images on the television that grew creepier and creepier.

I did think that some images of the monster were a bit goofy but apparently Kent was going for more lo-fi effects. And while most of the climax was great (driven by Essie Davis), certain scenes from it weren't as impactful as they could have been.

Overall great movie though, and I'm glad it got the accolades it did. I'm totally checking for Jennifer Kent from now on.