Forums Horror Movie Talk
6 Things We Need More (Or Less) Of In Horror Movies

Like most of us here, I have been a fan of horror movies for about as long as I can remember. During my years upon years of eagerly devouring almost every horror film I've heard of, I've noticed certain commonalities that are shared by most of them. They may be condered time honored traditions by filmmakers and fans alike, but some of these common aspects are being upheld to such an extreme degree that they are becoming cliches, rather than homages to earlier films. Even many of the new filmmakers who have only recently broken into the horror genre seem to be falling all over themselves to get creatively boxed in by establishing repetitive trends of their own. Without new plots and premises, or at least clever new twists on old ones, we can probably expect horror's current, well-documented struggle at the box office to get a lot worse before it gets any better. With that in mind, here is a list of 6 things I think we need to see more of (or sometimes less of) in the horror movies of tomorrow:1)We shouldn't be able to predict who will live or die: Every movie, of any genre, needs to have main protagonists. These are our viewpoint characters, and if they're developed well enough, they draw us into the story and make us care about the unfolding events. However, in the horror genre, everything begins to feel a little too safe if we have no expectation that the main protagonist is in any real danger of being killed. The sad fact is, once the main protagonist has been established, they almost always make it to the end relatively in one piece. In certain franchises, there are several characters who you know damn well are probably not going to die. There are exceptions to this rule, such as the Final Destination

series, which tends to kill off everybody. But that's really not much better. The same thing happens every time, so we still know exactly what to expect. The bottom line is that franchises that plan to keep moving forward need to switch up when main characters are put at risk, and how many people are left alive at the end, with each movie. Knowing that all the remaining survivors will be killed in the very last scene of a movie is just as bad as knowing exactly how many characters will be riding off into the sunset when the credits start to roll. It breaks down like this: The Scream series should kill off one of their "big 3" if Scream 5 becomes a reality. Final Destination should leave at least one character alive at the end of their next installment. Friday the 13th would be wise to come up with a character who is sexually free but not stupid, and actually escapes when Jason inevitably tries to kill him or her in the middle of a sexual encounter. Bacally, whatever we have to come to expect from a certain franchise in regards to who lives and who dies should be turned on its ear. 2) "Psychological thriller" doesn't have to mean "boring" : Most horror fans, even those of us who love our slasher films, are not opposed to a movie that screws with the minds of characters and viewers rather than having a costumed killer constantly jumping out to murder people. However, there is a growing trend in these types of "psychological" horror films to either just have characters constantly walking around in circles while they try to work out the nature of some unseen threat, or to otherwise subject the viewer to the slow descent of a character into madness without ever actually making it feel like they're in any real danger. The pacing of psychological thrillers seems to have grown progresvely more plodding with each new entry into this canon. For example, The Others

is a movie that has many good qualities the first time you watch it, and the ending is quite effective, but due to the pacing, it doesn't have much replay value. The same can be said of the first Blair Witch Project. Pacing issues also greatly detract from the recent Don't Be Afraid Of the Dark. On the other hand, Book Of Shadows, the sequel to Blair Witch, is a largely psychological movie that still has moments that actually make the viewer jump and reveals itself in richer detail upon a second viewing. Likewise, although Case 39 has other creative issues that make me reluctant to declare it a good movie, it knows how to keep the pace lively and it manages to mess with your head without sacrificing the sense of real, phycal danger to its main protagonist. 3) Slasher films can have psychological elements as well : This is kind of the flipde of my last point. Too many slasher films are just an endless series of murders where characters are killed off too quickly. That's just as bad as a slow-moving psychological thriller where no one is likely to actually die. It's okay for slasher films to transcend what people usually think of when they hear that term. Just because a psycho intends to kill someone, doesn't mean he can't screw with their mind first. The best we usually get in this regard are those instances in slasher films where the final girl stumbles upon the dead bodies of her friends. Sometimes these types of scenes are effective, but they're not quite enough to elevate the movie beyond typical slasher fare. The reason I like Scream 3 so much, despite the negative reactions many had to it, is that the killer in that movie used the electronically captured and manipulated voices of the characters against each other, most notably in the scenes where the likeness of dney Prescott's dead mother was used to torment her. For the first time in the franchise, dney seemed almost to believe that something supernatural might be going on, and for the first time, we saw her break down into all-out sobs. Phycal danger was never quite enough to provoke that reaction from this character, but psychological manipulation did the trick. I'd like to see more stuff like this in slasher films, because it just makes sense that a psycho who enjoys killing people might also enjoy manipulating and confung them first. 4) Rob Zombie's wife doesn't need to be in all his movies : So far, Rob Zombie has made 4 horror films to my knowledge. His wife, Sherri Moon Zombie, has been in all of them. She was even shoehorned into Halloween II as an apparition with a white horse, which categorically had nothing to do with anything we'd learned about Michael Myers before that film was made. Is it posble that Rob Zombie was mply trying to do something different with that particular element of the film? Sure it is. But in this case, most viewers felt it didn't work, and it seems just as likely that Mr. Zombie was merely looking for any excuse to put the Mrs. into yet another movie. This kind of blatant nepotism does not do Rob Zombie or Sherri Moon Zombie any favors. It's liable to make people question if Rob Zombie cares about his movies as much as he cares about helping his wife make money, or trying to prove to the world that he can land a hot babe. And if Sherri Moon Zombie really wants to make a go of an acting career, she needs to prove that she can land a role by virtue of her own talent, and start auditioning for parts in movies made by other creators. Rob Zombie is currently working on his fifth horror outing, The Lords Of Salem, and sure enough, Sherri Moon Zombie is again listed as a member of the cast. I can't help thinking of all the talented people without connections who are struggling to land a part in a theatrical release, and it makes me wonder if anyone else even had a chance to audition for the parts Sherri Moon Zombie has played in any of her husband's films. 5) We need more Major Motion Picture sequels, less straight-to-DVD : Every once in a while, a horror film decides to go the direct-to-DVD route because it really is too violent or scary or boundary-pushing for a theatrical release. This was certainly the case for the terrifying The Last Horror Movie. In the case of sequels where prior installments did debut at the box office, however, it is almost always an admison that they're not really trying anymore. If you don't believe me, try to t through I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer, or any of the direct-to-DVD (or TV) installments in the Children Of the Corn or Pumpkinhead franchises. It's a shame, too, because the last 2 franchises I just mentioned still had plenty of potential to scare theaters full of people, if that potential had not been squandered by going the eaer route. Horror fans love movies about killer children and religion gone bad, so Children Of The Corn

should by no means have been given up on. And Pumpkinhead boasts one of the best degned monsters in horror movie history, which is now confined to cheesy, ScyFy channel schlock. I'd rather the creative forces behind the sequels in these franchises wait until they have garnered sufficient interest and funding for a theatrical release, even if it means it takes a little bit longer. Because once a franchise jumps the shark by going straight-to-DVD, it's even harder for it to claw its way back into theaters. 6) Can we have some new slasher franchises, please? : Look, I love all the old slasher antagonists at least as much as the next person.

I hope Jason Voorhees, Freddy Kruger, Michael Myers and the various incarnations of Ghostface never have to end their killing sprees for good. That doesn't mean we can't be given any new killers to join their ranks. The Creeper from the Jeepers Creepers films is a pretty damn scary dude, and for a while, it looked as if he might make a great, new addition to the slasher pantheon. Sadly, after only 2 movies, it seems like the Creeper is running out of steam. Even though he represents one of the more original creations of horror, whether or not Jeepers Creepers 3

will ever see the light of day remains dubious at this point. I hope the forces behind deciding the Creeper's fate decide to take a risk on him, and I hope plenty of other new psychos pop up too, both human and monster alike. Whatever circumstantial evidence exists to the contrary, I don't believe the demand for new slasher movie killers ever really goes away. Like Tommy Doyle says in Halloween: The Curse Of Michael Myers, evil doesn't die, "it just rests awhile". There are plenty of other innovations, tweaks and improvements that can be made to horror movies of every subgenre. Rather than try to list every ngle one here, though, I'd rather put these 6 ideas out there and then turn the floor over to all of you. What do you think we need more of in horror? What do we need less of? And what will it take to get the creators behind scary movies to heed the wisdom of devout horror fans like us?

GREATEST ARTICLE OF THE MONTH!!!! KUDOS! Someone talk to the owner of this damn te and give this Bidite a shirt!!! :)

Great list! I'd add that the genre needs more thoughtfully scripted, art house quality films. What we need less of is violence which is extreme just for the sake of pushing the boundaries of what people can make themselves watch.

This is seriously the best article I have read on this te, and I agree with every point made. THANK YOU for writing this!

You pretty much hit it on all points. Completely agree with everything that came from your fingers. One other thing I would love to see in movies is a return to the sfx instead of cheesy cgi (some of which looks worse than the real deal) but I think pretty much all horror fans have echoed this statement.

Great article, major kudos.

1) The problem with many mainstream horror movies (and movies in general) is that they have "name" actors/actresses that you know are safe. This is one case when Scream truly shined, the opening scene where you knew this was not the typical horror film and no one was safe.

I do think they rely too much on convention (the virgin lives) and they should take more risks.

2) Psychological Thrillers can be fantastic if done well. I think too many times they overexplain details and that tends to make the movie drag. I think they should go in and make the movie without focung on every tiny little detail and stop trying to cater to the audience like we are a bunch of 5 year olds. I will say this is probably mostly due to the producers, who often have the brain capacity of said 5 year old. Great thrillers leave you guesng and are disected over and over with different people seeing things in different ways.

Also, thank you for being one of the few people to not bash Blair Witch 2. I thought it was a fantastic flick that did some very clever and usual stuff. Unfortunately, it became a punchline for people who hated the first one.

3) More movies need to mix genres.

4) She doesn't bother me nearly as much as seeing Helena Bonham Carter and Johnny Depp in every Tim Burton movie. I thought she was spectacular in The Devil's Rejects.

5) Even though horror continues to bank at the box office when it is treated well, it is still treated like the red headed stepchild. The dirty little secret that makes the studios money but they won't admit they need it. Direct to DVD used to mean instant crap but in the past few years they have stepped them up. Wrong Turn 2 was great. (although 3 was disappointing and I haven't seen 4 yet) Trick r Treat is now gaining a masve cult status and proof that Hollywood really has no idea what they are doing. That movie would have been huge if they released it in theaters around Halloween.

6) Behind the Mask was excellent. That has the best potential for becoming a new franchise. I think the problem now with new slasher characters is that in the old days they could make a few movies for a small budget and would have time to build up the character to legendary status. Now, they have a time and a half getting the movie made at all and then it has to be a big hit or it gets buried.Now, I'll tell you one thing we don't need any more of...3D. I'm ck and tired of these lame attempts to cash in on the 3D fad. It immediately takes me out of the film. IMHO 3D makes the movies worse because when you are just watching the regular veron of the film every few minutes something is poking out at the screen. Wow. It's like I'm in the movie...or something.

Fantastic article, man. Spot on. With one exception - Rob Zombie's wife has a stellar ass, and I could look at that thing all damn day. In fact, I think he should make a movie that has nothing BUT his wife's ass in it. Would hold my interest more than H2 did (Ohhhhh gonna receive some flack for that one!) :P

Wow. I'm truly flattered and moved by the potive reaction to this article. I will respond to everyone's posts more fully when time allows (really in a hurry at the moment) but I did wanna take a sec and address everyone who has been defending Sherri Moon Zombie. Please note that I never said she was a bad actress. I suggested she try out for roles in other movies bedes just the ones her husband makes, and that he not necessarily put her in every ngle one of his films. I think her acting is decent and could get better. Those of you who enjoy looking at her would get to see even more of her if she was in other movies bedes those of Mr. Zombie.Thanks again, everyone, you really made my night.

I would like to hear any feedback on the point you made about any other actresses who could have carried off the roles given freely to Sherri Moon Zombie. I believe she ncerely owns the role of Baby in House of a Thousand Corpses and Devils Rejects. But while being supremely hot enough to be a stripper she did not seem to have any grasp of connecting with the mother part of her role in Halloween. Maybe others could have pulled it off better if Rob had given them the chance? Thoughts?

Holy Shit ISP, you have written a hell of an article here. Good job. I'm in agreement with you on everything here.

Especially #6. And yes, here I go tooting my own damn horn again, but it's relevant to the discuson.

We definitely need a new slice of flesh in the horror genre. With Gun Town, I did my damndest to create something new without being a cliche'd rehash of everything else. With a mere 8K and 1 week to shoot, we gave it our all. Every filmmaker is his/her own worst critic, and I beat myself to this day knowing it could have been a better film if only I had.......

mply put, I'd LOVE to do a sequel. The story is in my head and I could write the script in enough time to shoot next year. There is so much to tell about the Bailey family and Gun Town. But know this, I wouldn't even think about approaching the project unless I had a decent budget. I want to do it right, because I want to give the audience what it wants.

Then there's The Lashman, an upcoming feature film by Cameron McCasland (if he'll get off his ass and finish it, lol) I'm kidding, but really, I co-produced this film and I must tell you that the story of this film is awesome. I'm certain the fans will love it. We all worked our asses into the ground for 2 weeks filming this feature. In my opinion, it has serious potential.

Boys and girls, I want to make horror films because I love the genre. I want to make films to entertain people, not to see how cheap I can do it or see how many awards I can win. It isn't about that. The ideas are there. Like zombies? I'm working on a new concept for that too.

The mention of theatrical release is a good one. I'd like to see more theaters that would show independent films. That will be my approach with my next one, if it happens.

We all know it's especially tough for indie filmmakers with all the piracy and everything, but I won't get into that. Let's just all keep our heads up high as horror fans and see what the future brings.

Great list! I'd add that the genre needs more thoughtfully scripted, art house quality films. What we need less of is violence which is extreme just for the sake of pushing the boundaries of what people can make themselves watch.Good point. My personal take on violence is that it should be based on realism. There should be blood and guts in scenes where it makes sense that there would be blood and guts, but the plot of the movie should not just be one excuse to show gore after another. Kill scenes can actually be quite scary and creative without being overly bloody (although I do love some of the really bloody ones too).

GREATEST ARTICLE OF THE MONTH!!!! KUDOS! Someone talk to the owner of this damn te and give this Bidite a shirt!!! :)Thanks, BooMan! Just FYI, I would rock that shirt multiple times every week.

Great article, major kudos.

1) The problem with many mainstream horror movies (and movies in general) is that they have "name" actors/actresses that you know are safe. This is one case when Scream truly shined, the opening scene where you knew this was not the typical horror film and no one was safe.

I do think they rely too much on convention (the virgin lives) and they should take more risks.

2) Psychological Thrillers can be fantastic if done well. I think too many times they overexplain details and that tends to make the movie drag. I think they should go in and make the movie without focung on every tiny little detail and stop trying to cater to the audience like we are a bunch of 5 year olds. I will say this is probably mostly due to the producers, who often have the brain capacity of said 5 year old. Great thrillers leave you guesng and are disected over and over with different people seeing things in different ways.

Also, thank you for being one of the few people to not bash Blair Witch 2. I thought it was a fantastic flick that did some very clever and usual stuff. Unfortunately, it became a punchline for people who hated the first one.

3) More movies need to mix genres.

4) She doesn't bother me nearly as much as seeing Helena Bonham Carter and Johnny Depp in every Tim Burton movie. I thought she was spectacular in The Devil's Rejects.

5) Even though horror continues to bank at the box office when it is treated well, it is still treated like the red headed stepchild. The dirty little secret that makes the studios money but they won't admit they need it. Direct to DVD used to mean instant crap but in the past few years they have stepped them up. Wrong Turn 2 was great. (although 3 was disappointing and I haven't seen 4 yet) Trick r Treat is now gaining a masve cult status and proof that Hollywood really has no idea what they are doing. That movie would have been huge if they released it in theaters around Halloween.

6) Behind the Mask was excellent. That has the best potential for becoming a new franchise. I think the problem now with new slasher characters is that in the old days they could make a few movies for a small budget and would have time to build up the character to legendary status. Now, they have a time and a half getting the movie made at all and then it has to be a big hit or it gets buried.Now, I'll tell you one thing we don't need any more of...3D. I'm ck and tired of these lame attempts to cash in on the 3D fad. It immediately takes me out of the film. IMHO 3D makes the movies worse because when you are just watching the regular veron of the film every few minutes something is poking out at the screen. Wow. It's like I'm in the movie...or something.Cecil, I quoted your whole post because I couldn't pick just one favorite part to address. I agree with pretty much every point you made. I'll try and respond to your points one at a time. 1) When the Scream franchise first debuted, there really was a sense of danger to every ngle character. I still absolutely love the franchise and often find myself defending it, but like I said, they need to kill off one of their "Big 3". I don't think it should be dney, though. I've heard it argued that it doesn't make sense that all these killers would primarily target the same person, but to me it makes perfect sense. These killers are patterning their murders after movies, and movies need to have a grand finale to one chapter before they can move on to another. Therefore, even if a new Ghostface wanted to target a new person, they'd likely feel obligated to finish dney off first. And nce dney stubbornly refuses to give up and die, Ghostface can't move on. Her survival keeps some other poor girl out there from becoming the new primary target. 2) Psychological thrillers are absolutely an indispensable subgenre of horror. You're right that they sometimes seem to patronize their audience, which is weird, nce psychological thrillers are generally thought of as being geared more towards adults. If you're making a movie for adults, trust them to be adult enough to understand what's happening rather than overexplaining. Adults tend to be the buest group of movie watchers out there, and they quickly lose patients with "thrillers" that are boring and talky. As adults, we want to be transported away from the daily grind of our lives for awhile. We don't want to feel like the daily grind of our lives is more entertaining than the slow-paced movie we're watching.3) Mixing genres can definitely be effective, as Scream, Behind the Mask and Slither have all proven. 4) You make a good comparison between Sherri Moon Zombie and Helena Bonham Carter/ Johnny Depp. Tim Burton does glom onto those 2 actors a little excesvely. The only big difference is that both Depp and Bonham Carter had successes as actors before they became Burton's pet muses, and both continue to pop up in films from other directors to this day. But it would still be nice if Tim Burton would try and see if he can remember how to make a movie without them in front of the camera, especially nce it seems like Burton and Depp are somehow making each other complacent these days. Sherri Moon Zombie actually was good in House of 1000 Corpses and the Devil's Rejects . You would think she could use those films as part of a portfolio to show to another director so she could stretch herself in a different kind of film. 5) Wrong Turn 2 was an exception to the rule. It somehow managed to defy all the odds. I really didn't expect to like it, nce I didn't even like the first one, and nce the whole franchise is extremely offenve to anyone who lives in West Virginia (I have some family there). However, the second installment took risks creatively. The reality show premise worked well and it killed off someone who we thought had been established as the main character. I give that movie major props. It's the only Wrong Turn

that I like. Trick R' Treat is also fantastic, but like you pointed out, that one was an original production that never had a theatrical predecessor, so it's not subject to the rule of crappy direct-to-DVD sequels.6) You have a point about new slasher characters, but movies can still be made on a small budget. Make up and gore effects can be done in ways that are creative and inexpenve, and if Paranormal Activity can do a ghost story on a shoestring budget, who says a slasher can't still be done without breaking the bank as well?

I see no problem with Zombie casting Sheri in all his movies. I see no problem with Tim Burton casting Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter in all of his movies.Those are their fucking movies, let them cast whoever the fuck they want.

Seriously, what do you want? Horror movies with all the actors and actresses who are currently popular in the mainstream in every movie? I see enough of those twats on the cover of the tabloids when I am grocery shopping.

I can't help the shameless plug, but my film BLOOD WAS EVERYWHERE was made with all this stuff in mind, and we didn't cast Sherri Moon Zombie!

I call my film an "arthouse slasher".

BWE was carefully crafted, it plays off of conventions but goes somewhere else. It messes with your head but keeps its feet on the ground. All cliches were tactfully avoided or used in unconventional ways. I've had people tell me "Had I been watching that at home I wouldn't have paused it once!" and "The murder scenes were some of the most realistic I've ever seen!"... My mother in law, who IS NOT SHY about her opinions, good or bad, absolutely loved it, she said she couldn't take her eyes off the screen. We will be sending out screeners for review soon, so for now you'll just have to take my word ;-)

We are taking the film on the road at the start of 2012, in the meantime vit us on Facebook (facebook.com/bloodwaseverywhere) and check out our trailer on YouTube. This film was made for you! The horror fans! Most producers see you as open wallets, I see you as "hungry for something different", I just want you to enjoy the film.

If you're in the Mass area our next screening is at The Elm Draught House Cinema in Millbury, MA on Sunday, Nov. 27th @ 1pm. Hope to see you there!

The only point in this article that didn't completely hit home was #5 about direct to dvd releases. It's true that some films could have had a longer cinematic run (though i'm not sure about children of the corn, that idea seems pretty straight forward and hard to build upon originally), but instead of forcing them into the theaters I would like to see more one and dones. By creating these numerous sequels, you unintentionally hurt the integrity of the franchise that may have been great with one movie, or 2-3 sequels at the most, children of the corn being a prime example (another is saw, which should have stopped at 3). The straight to dvd release probably has a lot to do with the fact that nobody would keep paying ticket prices, outde of true horror fans, to see the same thing with a tiny twist. I'd hate to see the next great horror franchise carried out to 7 or 8 sequels when a few sequels were sufficient, whether it be on dvd or in theaters.

overall inghtful article though!

-more slasher films, but less cheesy hype. I hate when i see "move over freddy krueger, heres the new horror icon" type shit. Its the kiss of death and every movie seems to do it. Also, how about some slashers with that 70's/80's vibe? wheres the sleaze, grime, brutality? movies are so sterile these days.

MORE: original intelligent movies LESS:Remakes of japanese ghost movies MORE: makeup and practical effects LESS: digital makeup, I'm so fucking ck of bad cheap digital blood spurts, prosthetics, exploons, sets etc. MORE: truly deep and suspenseful, scare the shit out of you for weeks after viewing, horror movies LESS: stupid goddamn startlers; anyone can startle someone and anyone with functioning reflexes will jump, it takes real talent to actually scare someone. MORE: QUALITY CONTROL!!!!!!!! Companies like the weinsteins are broke because they keep greenlighting half-baked crap instead of waiting for rhe real quality money-makers to come along

I would like to hear any feedback on the point you made about any other actresses who could have carried off the roles given freely to Sherri Moon Zombie. I believe she ncerely owns the role of Baby in House of a Thousand Corpses and Devils Rejects. But while being supremely hot enough to be a stripper she did not seem to have any grasp of connecting with the mother part of her role in Halloween. Maybe others could have pulled it off better if Rob had given them the chance? Thoughts?I agree with your comments regarding her roles in House Of 1,000 Corpses

and Halloween. As far as other actresses who could've done a better job, I probably could name some if I really thought about it, although I see no need to replace her as Baby. My point, though, was that there are actors none of us know yet because they are still fighting for their first role, and I'd like it if some of them had gotten to at least audition for the roles Sherri Moon Zombie played. As far as I know, she was just as new to acting as they are, if not newer.

The only point in this article that didn't completely hit home was #5 about direct to dvd releases. It's true that some films could have had a longer cinematic run (though i'm not sure about children of the corn, that idea seems pretty straight forward and hard to build upon originally), but instead of forcing them into the theaters I would like to see more one and dones. By creating these numerous sequels, you unintentionally hurt the integrity of the franchise that may have been great with one movie, or 2-3 sequels at the most, children of the corn being a prime example (another is saw, which should have stopped at 3). The straight to dvd release probably has a lot to do with the fact that nobody would keep paying ticket prices, outde of true horror fans, to see the same thing with a tiny twist. I'd hate to see the next great horror franchise carried out to 7 or 8 sequels when a few sequels were sufficient, whether it be on dvd or in theaters.

overall inghtful article thoughGood points here! All I'll add is that there will always be a new generation of moviegoers who are always at just the right age to love seeing movies like this in theaters. That's what has always sustained these franchises. It's fine if some films decide to wrap up their story in one amazing movie, but that's not a horror "franchise", it's just a horror "title". I think both franchises and standalone movies can exist. I also think that slashers built on a clever enough formula and willingness to be flexible enough with that formula without letting it go completely to shit can keep finding ways to reinvigorate themselves for a good number of sequels. It's fine for others to stop after only a few sequels. But I stand by my main point: once a franchise has released a theatrical movie, it's the kiss the death for it to release a straight-to-DVD sequel. It's like admitting you're not supposed to care, especially nce these movies aren't usually too expenve to make and there are a good number of people in the horror industry who would love to take a crack at writing their next sequel.

Ace, thanks for the reply. I will be doing my best to track down "Gun Town". I, too, wish more theaters would show indie films, but I understand why those films often go direct-to-DVD. My point about theatrical releases was reserved to franchises that had already been in the theater and then later started releang straight-to-DVD sequels.

I see no problem with Zombie casting Sheri in all his movies. I see no problem with Tim Burton casting Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter in all of his movies.Those are their fucking movies, let them cast whoever the fuck they want.

Seriously, what do you want? Horror movies with all the actors and actresses who are currently popular in the mainstream in every movie? I see enough of those twats on the cover of the tabloids when I am grocery shopping.Actually, if you had paid attention, you would have seen that I told you what I want already. I want UNKNOWN actors to have a chance to at least audition. I hate nepotism. Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter cut their teeth in acting the old fashioned way: by auditioning and landing roles based on their talent. My post had nothing to do with the actors you see on tabloids.

I can't help the shameless plug, but my film BLOOD WAS EVERYWHERE was made with all this stuff in mind, and we didn't cast Sherri Moon Zombie!

I call my film an "arthouse slasher".

BWE was carefully crafted, it plays off of conventions but goes somewhere else. It messes with your head but keeps its feet on the ground. All cliches were tactfully avoided or used in unconventional ways. I've had people tell me "Had I been watching that at home I wouldn't have paused it once!" and "The murder scenes were some of the most realistic I've ever seen!"... My mother in law, who IS NOT SHY about her opinions, good or bad, absolutely loved it, she said she couldn't take her eyes off the screen. We will be sending out screeners for review soon, so for now you'll just have to take my word ;-)

We are taking the film on the road at the start of 2012, in the meantime vit us on Facebook (facebook.com/bloodwaseverywhere) and check out our trailer on YouTube. This film was made for you! The horror fans! Most producers see you as open wallets, I see you as "hungry for something different", I just want you to enjoy the film.

If you're in the Mass area our next screening is at The Elm Draught House Cinema in Millbury, MA on Sunday, Nov. 27th @ 1pm. Hope to see you there

I really want to see (and review) your film! Please let me know as soon as there is a way for me to see it. I don't live anywhere near MA :(.