GO SEE SPLICE! “We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.”

In a nut-shell....

This good:

This bad:

Splice is one of those rare contemporary horror films that is not based solely around the oh-no-it's-a-scary-surprise formula. There are no haunted houses. There are only haunted people. There is a monster but she is not a demon from the world of the Dark Ages. She has at least one three-toed foot in 2010. Yet Dren (the chimera at the heart of Splice) also speaks to something more primitive and universal than any spirit or phantom. Bioengineering could bring us a frightening world where monsters are real or it could take us into the golden age of humanity where pestilence and famine are endangered species. Splice is a little more coy about that question than most mad science movies. I would argue that the real act of bioengineering criticized by the film is the world's oldest: parenthood. This is where the film subverts a primal urge and takes movie goers to places that are uncomfortable. Serious questions about the roles of family are raised and elements of developmental psychology are dissected without slowing down the monster thriller at the film's core. Essentially Splice never forgets that it is a horror film with a ridiculous monster but it chooses to go for disturbing otherness than the "jump-out." To break it down even simpler: Splice is about something.

The inexplicable hit Paranormal Activity brought a lot of attention to itself and the horror genre. Some of it deservedly so. Most of it not. It's tricks are somewhat amusing. The film's homemade quality a welcome change from two hundred million dollar tent pole movies. It's attempts to make candles and Ouija boards and wires spooky are toothless but refreshing after a decade of CGI ectoplasm. My real issue with PA is that it's about being scared and nothing more. No characters to speak of really. No plot to speak of really. Nothing to say except "boo!"

I also have an issue with PA's monster: the demonic force tormenting the painfully uninteresting heroine. I do not find demons frightening or disturbing. Same with ghosts. I don't think about them. They're myths--relics from a time when we didn't know any better. I appreciate the craft of something like The Haunting or the religious force of The Omen or The Exorcist but they are about issues that just do not apply to the world of 2010. Ghosts aren't real and demons aren't either. Not that Miss Dren is any more realistic than a demon or ghost. The difference is that genetic engineering does in fact exist. Parenting brings with it many moral dilemmas. Splice is fantastic and unrealistic but its problems represent our world. It's the real world in an unreal movie. One day I might have to struggle with the ethical implications of a new being's moral education. I will never, however, have to worry about summoning an oogly boogly with a board game.

Splice not only demonstrates that horror does not have to be concerned solely with scariness but it also demonstrates that it can also be a good movie. The grainy night vision of Paranormal Activity is a good gimmick but aesthetically lacking. Splice is expertly filmed with atmosphere and movement. Director Natali creates compositions that rank among the most memorable in modern horror. PA's characters were non-entities performed by believable if not exactly engaging actors. Splice features three wonderful central performances. Sarah Polley is now one of the great movie mad scientists. Delphine Chanéac delivers the greatest mute monster performance since Boris Karloff.

Splice is not a perfect movie buy any stretch (for a review that gets it right read Annalee Newitz's review on io9) but it does demonstrate something often woefully ignored. Horror movies do not have to be empty. They can be about more than being afraid of the dark. Their goals can be loftier than scaring the bejesus out of an audience. They can have those goals without forgetting that people paid money to be creeped out. If you want creative, intelligent horror movies go see Splice. If you want to see some tired meaningless nonsense about the devil wait for the Eli Roth produced The Last Exorcism. If you want quality, then watch Adrien Brody do weird things with a bald, dinosaur-legged Frenchwoman.

Universal Appeal III: MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE!

Murders in the Rue Morgue seems like an obvious choice to follow Dracula and Frankenstein. After you’ve done Stoker and Shelley it seems natural to move onto Poe. If you’re going to do Poe, then “Murders in the Rue Morgue” would be the one to film. It’s one of the few famous Poe stories that follows something other than his patented “misanthrope goes mad and kills wife/pet/roommate/enemy etc.” storyline. It also seems natural that you would give the project to Robert Florey who had helped develop Frankenstein--your biggest horror hit. While you’re at it, make it a vehicle for the star whose eerie presence helped make Dracula a pop culture phenomenon. Considering all these factors, one wonders why Murders in the Rue Morgue is not a landmark film like the movies that preceded and proceeded it. (Note: for a detailed look at the film’s production and plot look at this piece I wrote for the excellent Classic-horror.com way back in 2001. Be kind; I was only 18.)

I think there are two main reasons for this film’s failure to captivate audiences in 1932 and it’s failure to become a classic. One of the reasons is that the film has no iconic Monster in it. Erik is the film’s monster but he’s no Monster. A gorilla suit just isn’t iconic as Karloff and Pierce’s Frankenstein monster or any Pierce creation for that matter. There are dozens of films with shoddy gorillas that look just like Erik the ape (who is also played by footage of a real chimpanzee), which makes Erik a pretty dull beast. Plus, Erik has the misfortune of coming out one year before Hollywood truly fell in love with the subject of damsel grabbing gorillas.

Reason number two: the film has a sadistic and perverse side that none of the other Universal horror films (save The Black Cat) possess. The film's inclusion of prostitution, bestiality, and sexual abuse may make horror fans raised on giallo and gore take special note of this clunky old film but it’s kept Dr. Mirakle costumes from becoming Halloween traditions.

I think there might be more than 3 steps between salamander and human. I've seen judgement houses that are more scientifically accurate.

Left turn Erik!

Lugosi's scheme is to mate women with Erik the ape and therefore prove the theory of evolution. He's the rare mad scientist whose main idea is actually true but he's the very common kind of mad scientist whose experiments are a little dodgy.

Lugosi did this instead of Frankenstein. He could have been one of the most iconic characters in modern history. Instead he was evil-unibrow-Garfunkel.

Erik has killed Dr. Mirakle before grabbing a new mate. Like that old lady in Connecticut, Bela learned the hard way that apes make rotten pets.

Universal Appeal: Medium and Low. For fans of the genre who are unfamiliar with moldy oldies, Lugosi’s “2 girls 1 gorilla” experiments may hold interest. The film’s visuals are also of note. Robert Florey would become one of the most interesting directors of low budget thrillers. German Expressionism influenced all of the Universals but its influence is strongest in Murders in the Rue Morgue. Florey and cinematographer Karl Freud created some wonderfully crazed compositions for the film. Also, Lugosi is at his best here. He’s not just chewing the scenery. He’s gnawing and slobbering. He’s got pieces of it stuck in his wig. It’s a lot of fun to watch. What makes the movie less appealing are the terribly dated comic relief and romance scenes. These bring the horror to a halt. Whenever Lugosi is not on screen mugging and screaming about ape love, the film is dreadfully dull. You have to like old movies for being old movies to really enjoy this one despite it’s strengths.