HSMovieClub

The question came up at a birthday party last night, "what's your favorite vampire movie." I've never spent any considerable amount of time considering my answer, but Dracula was the first film that popped into my head. Instead, for some unknown reason, I talked about how under-appreciated The Return of Dracula is (see it -- it's really good. Dracula terrorizes 1950's suburbia).

Why didn't I just say Dracula? I love Dracula. Maybe it's cooler to say Blade or The Lost Boys, but Tod Browning's Dracula is THE vampire movie. If you disagree, tell me if the costume aisle during Halloween has generic Keifer Sutherlands or generic Bela Lugosis on display year-after-year. There's a creepy old castle, wispy vampire brides, decrepit crypts, and an iconic, commanding performance from Bela Lugosi -- all of the things we've taken for granted by decades filled with copycats.

For this week's Horror Squad Movie Club, we're going all the way back to 1931, and the vampire movie that set the standard for every vampire move to follow -- Dracula. You can watch it now on Netflix Instant, and we'll be back on Monday with a raging, blood-soaked discussion post. Watch it with fresh eyes, and remember that the cliches of the vampire genre weren't always cliches.

Welcome to this week's Horror Squad Movie Club discussion post. Hopefully everyone got to spend time with David Cronenberg's The Dead Zone over the weekend and is now ready to talk about it in depth. Naturally, there could be some spoilers here -- so if you didn't get a chance to check it out, go do that and come back once you're done. We'll still be here, I promise.

As I mentioned on Friday, Cronenberg's adaptation of The Dead Zone is my favorite film based on a King novel outside of Kubrick's The Shining. It hasn't aged as well as Kubrick's film -- which benefits greatly from its limited setting -- but it does feature a fantastic performance from Christopher Walken that may not be as gleefully unrestrained as Nicholson's, but is still quite powerful.

The Dead Zone has some uncharacteristically melodramatic moments considering it's a Cronenberg film (which are usually marked by a sense of almost clinical detachment), but it's hard to blame any of that on the director since a lot of that same melodrama is present in King's book. And while it doesn't have anyone developing videotape-hungry stomach slits, it still covers some distinctly Cronenbergian ground.

Here I am again with another David Cronenberg flick for the Horror Squad Movie Club -- but who can argue with The Dead Zone? And hell, whoever wants to argue about Cronenberg, bring it on. I've got the director's back against any and all comers.

Released in 1983, The Dead Zone was something of a departure for the Canadian filmmaker -- the first film he'd directed that he didn't also write. Based on a popular Stephen King novel, the feature gave Cronenberg an opportunity to focus solely on the behind the camera elements of the film. The results are very interesting.

The movie centers on John Smith (Christopher Walken!) a young English teacher who seemingly has the world by the tail until he's in a horrific car accident that leaves him in a coma for several years. When he awakens, he learns that he's lost everything -- his livelihood, the love of his life, years of irreplaceable time -- but gained something too. Johnny emerges from his coma with psychic powers and the rest of the film explores how these newfound extra-sensory abilities affect his life.

The Dead Zone isn't your typical Cronenberg or Stephen King film. It does bear some of the director's familiar themes and philosophical concerns, but they're understated and presented in a different manner than normal. As far as King adaptations go, this is one of the best -- probably only bettered by Kubrick's interpretation of The Shining.

I don't want to say much more about it for fear of ruining it for you and influencing the discussion. Check out The Dead Zone on Hulu or Netflix Watch Instantly, and come on back on Monday evening when we'll open up the discussion post and share our thoughts about this excellent and underrated film.

Actor Sean Pertwee had it right when he called Dog Soldiers "a soldier movie with werewolves in it," not the other way around. Neil Marshall's 2002 indie thriller pits a group of grubby British soldiers against a pack of nasty werewolves in the Scotland wilderness.

But Dog Soldiers isn't too concerned with exploring the origins of its hairy scary monsters or developing a rich horror mythology. Instead, Marshall, who also wrote the film's script, is more interested in introducing a number of memorable characters and placing them in some very creepy and dangerous situations.

You'll have to watch the movie's "making of" DVD featurette to hear Pertwee and the rest of the cast rave about Marshall's 2002 indie thriller. I didn't love the movie as much as they do, but I did have a good time with it, and I hope you did too. Let's explore Marshall's debut feature for a few hundred words or so, and don't forget to let us know what you thought about it in the comments section.

This week really sucked. Hurricane Alex blew through my town and flooded neighborhoods, dropped tornadoes on Main Street and cut off my Internet access for almost two days. Luckily, I was prepared. I picked up a few sandbags, half a dozen cans of Chef Boyardee and a handful of B movie DVDs from my pal Kevin's house before the storm hit.

Kevin's the kind of guy who'll drive forty miles out of his way just to buy something trashy and ridiculous like a bootleg copy of Turkish Spider-Man Vs. Santo. So, yeah, he owns a lot of weird and gloriously crappy movies, and I like to raid his collection from time to time just for kicks.

I left titles like Crippled Masters and Santa Claus Conquers the Martians on Kevin's shelf and nabbed his copies of spy spoof D.E.B.S., manga adaptation Yo-Yo Girl Cop and Dog Soldiers, the one horror flick that caught my eye.

I chose a thirty-minute movie for this week's Horror Squad Movie Club -- but don't let that fool you. The length of the film does not dictate the long lasting impact that Nacho Cerdà's Aftermath will have on you. The movie is a stunning visual exploration of one man's dark and violent sexual obsession with the dead. If you watch the film expecting a Spanish Nekromantik, you'll be seriously disappointed. Instead, Cerdà offers one of the most realistic and graphic depictions of a coroner/necrophiliac's unpleasant relationship with a dead woman in a morgue.

I told you guys that I would watch the movie with you on Twitter tonight, but really the film should be appreciated without idle Internet chat. Instead, let's meet back here on Monday where I'll host a live discussion of the film (and whatever else you'd like) at 10 PM, ET. I hope you can make it.

This isn't an easy film to watch, so you've been warned. Pop in your DVD this weekend, or find Aftermath on Netflix Watch Instantly. See you Monday!

Well that was a hell of a thing, huh? Well now that you've had the opportunity to watch Nosferatu, let's talk about what you thought. This was my first viewing, as I wanted to to experience it with a fresh set of noob eyes as I'm sure a few of you had. I've never been big on silent films, but I must say I enjoyed this 1922 Murnau classic. Let me break this down like a fraction and throw out a few discussion points. Jump past the bump to kick this shindig off!

"You obviously don't know who you are f*cking with!" – Blade

Guillermo del Toro f*cked with the formula of the first Blade movie just enough to create a fun, surprising, and endlessly gruesome action-horror mashup with Blade II. I recognize that this flick isn't nearly as good as most of the genre classics we like to celebrate here at HS, but it's one of my favorite vampire action movies of all time. It's also one of Del Toro's most sophisticated efforts, packing top of the line production values, makeup and special effects.

Blade II offers scene after scene of extended supernatural action. The carnage stops only briefly for a few jokey exposition scenes and some ghastly but artfully rendered shots of mutated, sliced, diced and hemorrhaging monster anatomy. Let's dive in and explore the 2002 sequel which, arguably, represents the movie trilogy at its creative peak.

Like most nerds, I was pretty bummed when I heard that Guillermo Del Toro had decided to pull out of the Hobbit movies, leaving Bilbo Baggins' return to the big screen in doubt. My dreams of seeing a freakish one-eyed version of Smaug and a Hobbit-sized Ron Perlman were forever dashed. I figured that creepshow king Del Toro was moving on to another one of his amazing passion projects, like Pan's Labyrinth or The Devil's Backbone, but I was wrong. According to a recent report, the Oscar nominee is developing a movie based on Van Helsing, the vampire hunter dreamed up by Bram Stoker in the original Dracula novel.

The general reaction to this news? I think "WTF" pretty much sums it up.

I get why Del Toro left The Hobbit (he reportedly didn't want to spend an extra three years in New Zealand working on a project that might never get made) ... but Van Helsing!? The last time we saw Stoker's monster stalker, he was murdering Dracula's mutant babies in a loud and lumbering Stephen Sommers-directed stinker. I think it's safe to say that moviegoers aren't clamoring for his return. Still, if anyone can bring Van Helsing back in high horror style, it's Del Toro. The guy works wonders with established characters and franchises, like Hellboy and, of course, Blade.