Connect with us

Editorials

Top 10 Horror Films with Big-Name Casts!

Published

on

It’s a sad fact that many A-list actors are wary of starring in horror films, either out of fear they’ll be seen as “slumming it” by appearing in a genre so oft-maligned by snobby elites or because they look down upon fright flicks themselves. Even in those rare instances when you do get to see a major star covered in corn syrup and/or doing battle with a horde of bloodsuckers, you’ll often hear said project billed as a “psychological thriller” or some other such nonsense, regardless of how much it wallows in the tropes and traditions of conventional horror.

Of course, the flip side of this is that many hardcore horror fans simply don’t want to see A-list actors appearing in the genre, the argument being that watching a big star like Sandra Bullock or Will Smith in a scary movie makes it harder to suspend one’s disbelief and become truly immersed – and therefore frightened by – the situation at hand.

Nevertheless, every once in awhile a horror project comes along – often one with a top-shelf director attached – that manages to attract major movie stars either drawn by some whiff of “artistic credibility” or, perhaps more commonly, a considerable payday. In rare instances these films actually end up being decent, somehow managing to skirt the pitfalls of bloated budgets and movie-star egos to become a respected entry in the genre. With all that in mind, B-D reporter Chris Eggertsen recently put together his list of the ten best star-driven horror (or horror-adjacent) films that succeeded in giving both genre fans and mainstream audiences alike something to scream about. See inside for his selections.


Before I begin my countdown of the “Ten Best Horror Films with Big-Name Casts”, I’d first like to lay out what my criteria was for choosing the following titles – as everyone’s opinion on what designates a “big name cast” obviously differs. As my own standards regarding this were pretty strict, I wanted to make sure I laid them out beforehand to try and avoid any confusion over what the qualifications were. Here they are in a nutshell:

1) The movie stars in question must have been big names at the time they appeared in the film. Yes, Renee Zellwegger and Matthew McConaughey both had roles in Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation, but neither of them were famous yet either.

2) No “hot for a minute” teen stars or up-and-comers qualify as “movie stars”. For example, Scream may have starred a host of fresh young T.V. faces and notable personalities, but none of them were major stars – at least not yet (this includes Drew Barrymore).

3) Actors big with horror audiences but not widely known by the general public don’t count as “big names”. Danielle Harris and Kane Hodder may be A-listers in your book, but they aren’t mainstream stars and therefore don’t count for the purposes of this article.

4) “Stars” famous simply for making sex tapes or walking innumerable red carpets don’t qualify as “big names” here. Paris Hilton may be a huge celebrity as far as the tabloid press is concerned, but she’s not a movie star.

5) The criteria for number of stars appearing in a horror film in order for that film to qualify depends on the totality of star power possessed by the ensemble cast. If there’s only one big name appearing in the horror movie in question, it simply doesn’t qualify for the list no matter how famous they are. If there are just two, they must be major, A-list superstars on the order of a Reese Witherspoon or Johnny Depp. If there are more than two, there must be a significant amount of collective star power on display for the movie in question to pass muster. “B-listers” like, say, Matthew Broderick or Jennifer Jason Leigh aren’t enough on their own for the movie they’re starring in together to be considered; there would need to be at least one other notable actor starring opposite them for the movie to qualify.

Clear enough for everyone? Alrighty then, let’s begin.

10. What Lies Beneath (2000)

While I found myself let down by the film’s misguided denouement – sorry, but Harrison Ford just isn’t scary – in its first two acts at least (not to mention that standout bathtub scene) What Lies Beneath proves to be a pretty good blend of Hitchcockian suspense and supernatural horror. Its $100 million budget (nearly unprecedented for a horror film) no doubt bloated by the presence of its two above-the-line superstars (Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer, who was still a major star at the time despite several recent flops), director Robert Zemeckis at least made pretty good use of all that cash, managing to imbue the film with a sheen of high-class sophistication that harkened back to the glory days of predecessors like Hitchcock and Roman Polanski.

9. The Devil’s Advocate (1997)

Granted, Charlize Theron wasn’t a star yet when she came out in this film, but when you’ve got heavyweight Al Pacino and the inexplicably A-list Keanu Reeves in the same movie, that’s a big-name cast whether you like it or not. And in all truthfulness, while it’s far from a perfect film The Devil’s Advocate is also way more fun than I ever expected. Director Taylor Hackford manages to work up a genuinely sinister atmosphere in the early sequences – with Theron giving an unhinged performance to rival Mia Farrow’s in Rosemary’s Baby – before going completely off the rails (in a good way) somewhere around the midpoint. The main strength of the film is Hackford’s deft balancing of the material – while it’s somewhat intelligent, it also never forgets that at heart it’s essentially a glossed-over “B-movie” – and Pacino seals the deal with his deliberately over-the-top performance as the literal boss from Hell.

8. Hannibal (2001)

Wildly divergent from its relatively subdued Oscar-winning predecessor, director Ridley Scott went in a bold and far more indulgent new direction with Hannibal, though admittedly that’s due to the far more lurid tone of the novel, which one-upped the previous two books in the series (Red Dragon and The Silence of the Lambs) in its willingness to go to some truly gruesome places. Scott, obviously taking the book’s Grand Guignol sensibilities as a license to kill, crafted sequences of such over-the-top grisliness that many reviewers went on to derisively label the film as “repugnant”, “distasteful”, and “stupid”, among other choice adjectives. Yet in retrospect, even if you consider Hannibal a failure (I don’t, though Lambs is without a doubt a superior film), it certainly has to qualify as one of the most interesting failures from the last decade in cinema. Julianne Moore, taking on the role of Clarice and starring alongside such luminaries as Hopkins, Ray Liotta and a gruesomely unrecognizable Gary Oldman, should also be applauded for bravely taking on the essentially “lose-lose” challenge of following up Foster’s legendary Oscar-winning performance.

7. Red Dragon (2002)

Yes it was directed by Brett Ratner, but Red Dragon is still a more-than-worthy entry in the storied serial-killer franchise. Essentially a remake of Michael Mann’s 1986 film Manhunter – though both were based on the same book by Thomas Harris – the film featured a bigger-name cast and higher production values than that previous adaptation, with top-shelf actors like Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Harvey Keitel, and Philip Seymour Hoffman starring alongside Hopkins as the highly-intelligent cannibal/former psychiatrist Dr. Hannibal Lecter. While it doesn’t take the breath away like Jonathan Demme’s superior Silence of the Lambs, Red Dragon is nevertheless a well-crafted horror/thriller that boasts some genuinely thrilling sequences and impressive performances all around.

6. Shutter Island (2010)

The closest Scorsese has ever come to full-fledged horror, Shutter Island boasts an A-list star in Leonardo Dicaprio and surrounds him with other weighty names including Mark Ruffalo, Ben Kingsley, Michelle Williams, and Patricia Clarkson. While far from the director’s most accomplished work – which isn’t saying much considering he’s arguably never made a bad film – as a gothic chiller it works better than most in working up an atmosphere of intense paranoia and existential dread. Utilizing the eerie sound effects employed by traditional “spooky old house” movies in service of an ultimately human story, the quietly ambiguous ending is an undeniable tragedy no matter which way you choose to interpret it.

5. Zodiac (2007)

Though generally considered more of a crime thriller/police procedural than a genuine horror film, Zodiac nevertheless ranks on this list due to several nerve-jangling scenes in which the eponymous serial killer’s real-life murders are horrifically reconstructed by director David Fincher. High-profile above-the-line leads Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, and Robert Downey, Jr. are certainly effective in their roles as three men obsessively searching for the true identity of the infamous Zodiac killer, but the real star here is Fincher’s direction, which effectively captures the paranoia and desperation that came to characterize the atmosphere surrounding the still-unsolved murders (though the film could’ve admittedly benefited from a little trimming). The scene depicting the daylight stabbing of two young lovers by Lake Berryessa is so matter-of-fact in its outright brutality that it’s remained seared into my brain ever since.

4. Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)

Marking Francis Ford Coppola’s first foray into the horror genre since directing Dementia 13 for Roger Corman, Bram Stoker’s Dracula featured a top-shelf early-`90s cast including Anthony Hopkins, Keanu Reeves, Winona Ryder, and the chameleonic Gary Oldman starring as the titular Count. Despite some rather wooden acting from a miscast Reeves (shocker!) and a painfully unconvincing English accent by Ryder, Coppola nevertheless imbues the film with a genuinely gothic atmosphere and some of the most breathtaking art direction I’ve ever seen in a horror movie. In the pantheon of contemporary vampire films it’s no doubt one of the greatest, and certainly one of the best post-Apocalypse Now offerings of Coppola’s career.

3. Interview with the Vampire (1994)

Neil Jordan’s visually stunning adaptation of Anne Rice’s 1976 novel stirred up quite a bit of controversy prior to release, specifically due to Rice’s displeasure over the studio’s decision to cast box-office draw Tom Cruise in the role of Lestat (she wanted Julian Sands). Adding to the project’s star-studded credentials were newly-minted heartthrob Brad Pitt as Louis, Christian Slater as Daniel, and Antonio Banderas – just off an attention getting-role as Tom Hanks’ lover in Philadelphia – as Armand. With this many stars in the mix the film could’ve easily ended up as an inflated mess, but as seductively helmed by Jordan it nevertheless proved worthy of its source material and succeeded in becoming one of the greatest horror films of the 1990s (at least in this writer’s humble opinion). As for Rice, she later sent a letter of apology to Cruise, recanting her earlier displeasure after being shown a cut of the film. “From the moment he appeared [on screen], Tom was Lestat for me”, she was quoted as saying.

2. Seven (1995)

It’s a good thing stars Morgan Freeman and particularly Brad Pitt (starring opposite an unbilled Kevin Spacey and rising star Gwyneth Paltrow) possessed the sort of clout they did at the time of Seven‘s release; if it weren’t for them, the film’s classic shocker ending would’ve most likely been replaced with a more “upbeat” studio-preferred finale that had Pitt and Freeman’s characters successfully saving Tracey from the clutches of John Doe. According to commentary on the DVD release, both actors, along with director David Fincher, adamantly refused to participate in the film if the studio and producers chose to go with the latter ending. Ironically, it was the film’s bleak denouement that most drove audience word-of-mouth, allowing it to finish with over $100 million in domestic receipts and earning Fincher plaudits for his willingness to plumb the darkest recesses of human depravity.

1. Ghostbusters (1984)

While I imagine many of you will be scratching your heads over this one, at the end of the day Ghostbusters is enough of a horror film to qualify for this list. While I’ll admit it’s a comedy first and foremost, the way it weaves the conventions of supernatural fright films into the mix is undeniably effective, and a big part of why the movie succeeds as well as it does. Featuring a who’s-who of the day’s top comedic actors including Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, Ghostbusters became the second highest-grossing film of 1984 on its initial release and launched its already-popular stars – including then-rising actress Sigourney Weaver – even further into the stratosphere. Deftly helmed by director Ivan Reitman, Ghostbusters is indisputably a classic of its type and succeeded in delivering some of the most iconic cinematic moments of the 1980s. Its subsequent influence on future entries in the horror/comedy sub-genre is nothing short of colossal

Advertisement
173 Comments

Editorials

‘Amityville Karen’ Is a Weak Update on ‘Serial Mom’ [Amityville IP]

Published

on

Amityville Karen horror

Twice a month Joe Lipsett will dissect a new Amityville Horror film to explore how the “franchise” has evolved in increasingly ludicrous directions. This is “The Amityville IP.”

A bizarre recurring issue with the Amityville “franchise” is that the films tend to be needlessly complicated. Back in the day, the first sequels moved away from the original film’s religious-themed haunted house storyline in favor of streamlined, easily digestible concepts such as “haunted lamp” or “haunted mirror.”

As the budgets plummeted and indie filmmakers capitalized on the brand’s notoriety, it seems the wrong lessons were learned. Runtimes have ballooned past the 90-minute mark and the narratives are often saggy and unfocused.

Both issues are clearly on display in Amityville Karen (2022), a film that starts off rough, but promising, and ends with a confused whimper.

The promise is embodied by the tinge of self-awareness in Julie Anne Prescott (The Amityville Harvest)’s screenplay, namely the nods to John Waters’ classic 1994 satire, Serial Mom. In that film, Beverly Sutphin (an iconic Kathleen Turner) is a bored, white suburban woman who punished individuals who didn’t adhere to her rigid definition of social norms. What is “Karen” but a contemporary equivalent?

In director/actor Shawn C. Phillips’ film, Karen (Lauren Francesca) is perpetually outraged. In her introductory scenes, she makes derogatory comments about immigrants, calls a female neighbor a whore, and nearly runs over a family blocking her driveway. She’s a broad, albeit familiar persona; in many ways, she’s less of a character than a caricature (the living embodiment of the name/meme).

These early scenes also establish a fairly straightforward plot. Karen is a code enforcement officer with plans to shut down a local winery she has deemed disgusting. They’re preparing for a big wine tasting event, which Karen plans to ruin, but when she steals a bottle of cursed Amityville wine, it activates her murderous rage and goes on a killing spree.

Simple enough, right?

Unfortunately, Amityville Karen spins out of control almost immediately. At nearly every opportunity, Prescott’s screenplay eschews narrative cohesion and simplicity in favour of overly complicated developments and extraneous characters.

Take, for example, the wine tasting event. The film spends an entire day at the winery: first during the day as a band plays, then at a beer tasting (???) that night. Neither of these events are the much touted wine-tasting, however; that is actually a private party happening later at server Troy (James Duval)’s house.

Weirdly though, following Troy’s death, the party’s location is inexplicably moved to Karen’s house for the climax of the film, but the whole event plays like an afterthought and features a litany of characters we have never met before.

This is a recurring issue throughout Amityville Karen, which frequently introduces random characters for a scene or two. Karen is typically absent from these scenes, which makes them feel superfluous and unimportant. When the actress is on screen, the film has an anchor and a narrative drive. The scenes without her, on the other hand, feel bloated and directionless (blame editor Will Collazo Jr., who allows these moments to play out interminably).

Compounding the issue is that the majority of the actors are non-professionals and these scenes play like poorly performed improv. The result is long, dull stretches that features bad actors talking over each other, repeating the same dialogue, and generally doing nothing to advance the narrative or develop the characters.

While Karen is one-note and histrionic throughout the film, at least there’s a game willingness to Francesca’s performance. It feels appropriately campy, though as the film progresses, it becomes less and less clear if Amityville Karen is actually in on the joke.

Like Amityville Cop before it, there are legit moments of self-awareness (the Serial Mom references), but it’s never certain how much of this is intentional. Take, for example, Karen’s glaringly obvious wig: it unconvincingly fails to conceal Francesca’s dark hair in the back, but is that on purpose or is it a technical error?

Ultimately there’s very little to recommend about Amityville Karen. Despite the game performance by its lead and the gentle homages to Serial Mom’s prank call and white shoes after Labor Day jokes, the never-ending improv scenes by non-professional actors, the bloated screenplay, and the jittery direction by Phillips doom the production.

Clocking in at an insufferable 100 minutes, Amityville Karen ranks among the worst of the “franchise,” coming in just above Phillips’ other entry, Amityville Hex.

Amityville Karen

The Amityville IP Awards go to…

  • Favorite Subplot: In the afternoon event, there’s a self-proclaimed “hot boy summer” band consisting of burly, bare-chested men who play instruments that don’t make sound (for real, there’s no audio of their music). There’s also a scheming manager who is skimming money off the top, but that’s not as funny.
  • Least Favorite Subplot: For reasons that don’t make any sense, the winery is also hosting a beer tasting which means there are multiple scenes of bartender Alex (Phillips) hoping to bring in women, mistakenly conflating a pint of beer with a “flight,” and goading never before seen characters to chug. One of them describes the beer as such: “It looks like a vampire menstruating in a cup” (it’s a gold-colored IPA for the record, so…no).
  • Amityville Connection: The rationale for Karen’s killing spree is attributed to Amityville wine, whose crop was planted on cursed land. This is explained by vino groupie Annie (Jennifer Nangle) to band groupie Bianca (Lilith Stabs). It’s a lot of nonsense, but it is kind of fun when Annie claims to “taste the damnation in every sip.”
  • Neverending Story: The film ends with an exhaustive FIVE MINUTE montage of Phillips’ friends posing as reporters in front of terrible green screen discussing the “killer Karen” story. My kingdom for Amityville’s regular reporter Peter Sommers (John R. Walker) to return!
  • Best Line 1: Winery owner Dallas (Derek K. Long), describing Karen: “She’s like a walking constipation with a hemorrhoid”
  • Best Line 2: Karen, when a half-naked, bleeding woman emerges from her closet: “Is this a dream? This dream is offensive! Stop being naked!”
  • Best Line 3: Troy, upset that Karen may cancel the wine tasting at his house: “I sanded that deck for days. You don’t just sand a deck for days and then let someone shit on it!”
  • Worst Death: Karen kills a Pool Boy (Dustin Clingan) after pushing his head under water for literally 1 second, then screeches “This is for putting leaves on my plants!”
  • Least Clear Death(s): The bodies of a phone salesman and a barista are seen in Karen’s closet and bathroom, though how she killed them are completely unclear
  • Best Death: Troy is stabbed in the back of the neck with a bottle opener, which Karen proceeds to crank
  • Wannabe Lynch: After drinking the wine, Karen is confronted in her home by Barnaby (Carl Solomon) who makes her sign a crude, hand drawn blood contract and informs her that her belly is “pregnant from the juices of his grapes.” Phillips films Barnaby like a cross between the unhoused man in Mulholland Drive and the Mystery Man in Lost Highway. It’s interesting, even if the character makes absolutely no sense.
  • Single Image Summary: At one point, a random man emerges from the shower in a towel and excitedly poops himself. This sequence perfectly encapsulates the experience of watching Amityville Karen.
  • Pray for Joe: Many of these folks will be back in Amityville Shark House and Amityville Webcam, so we’re not out of the woods yet…

Next time: let’s hope Christmas comes early with 2022’s Amityville Christmas Vacation. It was the winner of Fangoria’s Best Amityville award, after all!

Amityville Karen movie

Continue Reading