Editorials
Ebert at the Horror Movies: The Late Critic’s Thoughts On Horror Classics
A couple of weeks ago, in the comments section for my retrospective piece on John Carpenter’s The Fog where I highlighted Roger Ebert’s negative review of the film, a commenter asked a simple question: “Has Roger Ebert ever given a positive review to a horror film?” The answer is “Yes.” For instance, Ebert was an early champion of Carpenter’s Halloween, long before the rest of the critical masses started praising Carpenter as the next coming of Hitchcock. However, the Chicago Sun-Times film critic has a tumultuous relationship with the slasher films that followed in Halloween’s wake.
Famously, the outrage started by a Milwaukee association (made up mostly of overprotective mothers) surrounding the release of the killer-santa classic Silent Night, Deadly Night, was backed by Ebert himself. On his massively popular review program, “Siskel and Ebert at the Movies,” Ebert and fellow critic Gene Siskel tore into the holiday slasher. After Siskel calls out the filmmakers by name for making such a “contemptible” product, Ebert chimes in to say, “I would like to hear them explain to their children and their grandchildren that it’s only a movie.” Ultimately, the duo viewed the film as a genuine cause for concern with the potential to damage the minds of impressionable youths.
They even devoted an entire episode to trashing “women in danger films” (read: slashers) by honing in on what they felt was rampant misogyny aimed squarely at titillating perverse male audience members. Surely, there is truth to their analysis in regards to some of the seedier crash-grabs of the time. Of course, this completely disregards the power of the final girl trope. Even, as an example for their argument, they spotlight one of the most tame films of the era, When a Stranger Calls. The episode is available in its entirety on YouTube (I’ll include at the end of this article), and it’s well worth a watch for those interested in the critical temperament of the slasher Golden Age.
“I think a lot of people have the wrong idea. They identify these films with earlier thrillers like Psycho or even a more recent film like Halloween, which we both liked. These films aren’t in the same category. These films hate women, and, unfortunately, the audiences that go to them, don’t seem to like women much either…To sit there [in the theater] surrounded by people who are identifying, not with the victim but with the attacker, the killer – cheering these killers on, it’s a very scary experience.” – Roger Ebert, “Siskel and Ebert at the Movies”
Let’s get this straight, this is in no way an article meant to bash Ebert. As a kid, before the major boom of the internet and the flurry of film related websites, I looked to the local paper every Friday for the critics’ reviews. I watched “At the Movies” often in hopes of hearing about the smaller indie films that may have flown under my radar. I trusted Ebert’s opinion, even if I didn’t always agree. That’s the power of film criticism, it is alway going to simply be one person’s opinion. It’s up to you as the reader to decide if the points the critic makes hit a chord in line with your personal taste.
In regards to a film like When a Stranger Calls, it’s most likely the nerve hit by theses films in the eyes of Siskel and Ebert was exactly the endgame as set out by the filmmakers. Horror is confrontational and difficult to watch. It can also represent some of the lowest common denominator sleaze, as well. However, it’d be hard to say that Roger Ebert just “didn’t get it.” The man had a brilliant mind and was capable of bringing the world of highfalutin film criticism into the homes of everyday people. That said, I thought it would be fun to take a look at Ebert’s reviews for some unquestionably classic horror films. Did the great reviewer “get it right” in terms of general horror fandom’s appreciation of a certain picture, or was he far off the map in his despisal?
Re-Animator
“One of the pleasures of the movies, however, is to find a movie that chooses a disreputable genre and then tries with all its might to transcend the genre, to go over the top into some kind of artistic vision, however weird. Stuart Gordon’s Re-Animator is a pleasure like that, a frankly gory horror movie that finds a rhythm and a style that make it work in a cockeyed, offbeat sort of way.”
3 out of 4 Stars
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
“Horror and exploitation films almost always turn a profit if they’re brought in at the right price. So they provide a good starting place for ambitious would-be filmmakers who can’t get more conventional projects off the ground. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre belongs in a select company (with Night of the Living Dead and Last House on the Left) of films that are really a lot better than the genre requires. Not, however, that you’d necessarily enjoy seeing it.”
2 out 4 Stars
A Nightmare on Elms Street 3: Dream Warriors
Review: February 27, 1987
“All the characters seemed adrift in a machine-made script, a script devised as a series of pegs to hang the special effects on. The story involves the surviving ‘Elm Street children,’ whose parents, we learn, were vigilantes who cornered a child-killer down in the old junkyard and burned him alive.”
1 1/2 Stars out of 4
Scream
Review: December 20th, 1996
“In a way, this movie was inevitable. A lot of modern film criticism involves ‘deconstruction’ of movie plots. ‘Deconstruction’ is an academic word. It means saying what everybody knows about the movies in words nobody can understand. Scream is self-deconstructing; it’s like one of those cans that heats its own soup.” Remember that? Those were scary times, y’all.
“…As a film critic, I liked it. I liked the in-jokes and the self-aware characters. At the same time, I was aware of the incredible level of gore in this film. It is *really* violent. Is the violence defused by the ironic way the film uses it and comments on it? For me, it was. For some viewers, it will not be, and they will be horrified.”
3 out of 4 Stars
Friday the 13th Part 2
Review: January 1, 1981
Ebert notoriously hated the Friday the 13th films. I couldn’t find a review for the first, but I’m sure it would have been equally negative. In fact, he ends this write-up with “*This review will suffice for the Friday the 13th film of your choice.”
“The pre-title sequence showed one of the heroines of the original Friday The 13th, alone at home. She has nightmares, wakes up, undresses, is stalked by the camera, hears a noise in the kitchen. She tiptoes into the kitchen. Through the open window, a cat springs into the room. The audience screamed loudly and happily: It’s fun to be scared. Then an unidentified man sunk an ice pick into the girl’s brain, and, for me, the fun stopped…This movie is a cross between the Mad Slasher and Dead teenager genres; about two dozen movies a year feature a mad killer going berserk, and they’re all about as bad as this one. Some have a little more plot, some have a little less. It doesn’t matter. “
1/2 Star Out of 4
Child’s Play
Review: November 9, 1988
“Child’s Play is a cheerfully energetic horror film of the slam-bang school, but slicker and more clever than most, about an evil doll named Charles Lee Ray, or ‘Chucky’.”
Ebert goes on to explain the “False Alarm,” such as the cat scare, and how such a moment is just a setup for the real terror. “Child’s Play is better than the average False Alarm movie because it is well made, contains effective performances, and has succeeded in creating a truly malevolent doll. Chucky is one mean SOB.”
3 Out of 4 Stars
There you have it, folks. Despite his reputation as a hater of all things horror, it appears Ebert had no qualms on singling out quality pictures when he saw them. His voice in film criticism is one that will always be missed.
In this day and age, the word “troll” is often used to describe various online nuisances. Yet as abundant and irksome as the modern troll can be, they aren’t usually as fearsome as their mythological counterparts. I’m not talking about the small and gentler versions that have become more common to see in media. No, there are much bigger and scarier trolls out there—and André Øvredal’s movie Troll Hunter is one of the best places to find them.
It doesn’t take long for Troll Hunter (or Trolljegeren) to dump the Blair Witch Project-esque setup and aim for something a lot fresher. The trajectory of the story is augmented by Otto Jespersen’s character Hans, the titular Troll Hunter. The second he comes barreling out of the deep, dark woods and shouts “troll” at the camera, this movie takes a turn into what feels like uncharted territory. Not only subject-wise, but also conceptually.
For fantastical and made-up subject matter in cinema, found footage is a fast way to add a guise of believability. After all, what we accept to be the most crucial aspect of documentaries—the truth—rubs off on pseudo-documentaries, despite our understanding of the pretense involved. That is what Øvredal delivered with Troll Hunter: a movie so convincing that some viewers wondered if trolls really do exist. So, had this been straightforwardly made, it likely wouldn’t have been as effective. Conventional narratives would be more inclined to treat something like trolls as flat out unreal, and never try to convince the audience to think otherwise.
Hans petrifies the three-headed Tusseladd troll.
The viewers, like the characters trailing Hans, are quickly thrown into the deeper end of that extraordinary story. They have to process all this new information while staying on the go. So, although there is no significant amount of meandering, narratively or physically, there is still a good amount of atmosphere, not to mention tension building. It’s never anything frightful, but then again, Troll Hunter isn’t your standard offering of horror; it’s more on the low end of the dark fantasy spectrum. We aren’t ever spirited away to a faraway world—we stay in rather familiar surroundings, as well as dip into those less so. The outcome is a movie where you’re constantly more in awe than in terror.
As fantasy fiction might do, Troll Hunter prefers not to deal with incredulity. There is no time to waste on doubt, as interviewer Thomas (Glenn Erland Tosterud), soundperson Johanna (Johanna Mørck), and cameraman Kalle (Tomas Alf Larsen) all follow Hans around, recording whatever this character is willing to reveal about his bizarre job. Of course, the Troll Hunter himself is not an open book; in that respect, the diegetic documentary fails to fully capture and unpack the more interesting of its two subjects. Yes, all those giant, monstrous trolls are indeed incredible, but understandably, your mind wanders to their pursuer. What kind of person signs up for this gig and then chooses to stick with it for so long?
Reviews have called out Troll Hunter for its lack of character development. In regard to Thomas and his fellow documentarians, that criticism is valid, but bear in mind, they aren’t the focus of the story, either. Meanwhile, Hans is a well-crafted character. At least better than first realized. Before he was introduced, Hans had already grown tired of the troll grind. Fed up with that low compensation for his services, resentful of the bureaucracy, and wanting to expose his employer on a large scale, Hans’ discontent is glaring.
Then there are those finer details about the Troll Hunter, such as that indifference to both the natural splendor of his everyday surroundings and the affections of an obviously smitten colleague, that also suggest some level of despondency. So it is fair to say this movie doesn’t feature any sizable growth for its characters; however, the namesake isn’t underwritten. No doubt, putting a real-life character like Otto Jespersen in that role is partly why Hans is so fascinating—maybe even relatable.
Otto Jespersen as Hans the Troll Hunter.
There is always a small risk whenever using the term “mockumentary” to describe a found-footage movie, as the word could imply humor where there is none. In the case of Troll Hunter, the term’s usage is appropriate. Some folks have claimed the English-dubbed version has the more comedic tone, however, the Norwegian cut isn’t exactly humorless. Apart from the trolls’ absurd appearances, this is a movie where the characters nearly choke on the monsters’ farts, and Christians are like walking targets. Hans’ complete apathy towards everything is another cause of laughter. Overall, the comedy is intentionally dry and inconsistent. Unfunny, though? Absolutely not.
In a movie where endemic creatures are maltreated, as well as disavowed from living freely and peacefully, it’s hard not to notice the ecological message buried beneath the story. In addition to that is the unmistakable political satire. There is this whole business about intrusive and unsightly power lines—like trolls, they’re big blemishes on the land—that leads to what is perhaps the movie’s funniest moment. The scene in question is that one where certain electric lines, the ones secretly being used to keep the trolls at bay, go in a loop and don’t actually send power to any residents. Yet the monitors of said lines don’t find this at all weird. So it stands to reason that Øvredal was having a go at those who accept the government’s doings without question.
Looking past the fact that trolls aren’t actually real, this movie is an enlightening source of information. And not just for international audiences; Norwegians, too, get schooled about their homeland’s own mythology. It’s also evident from everything on screen that Øvredal and his crew were enthusiastic about the topic. The creature designs are the most indicative of that zeal; those imaginative yet myth-accurate manifestations are equally amusing and grotesque. One second you’re laughing at their phallic noses, the next you’re white-knuckling during a hairy sequence. Most surprisingly is how well the trolls’ visual effects hold up after fifteen years. It’s not all spotless, but on the whole, they remain impressive.
Vouching for a mockumentary about trolls isn’t easy, but those who do come around and give it a shot will more than likely be grateful for the recommendation. For Troll Hunter is a real find in that vast and varied genre we call “found footage“.
A bridge troll reaches up for food and finds Hans decked out in armor.
You must be logged in to post a comment.