Guest Post; MY ESSENTIAL HALLOWEEN SCREAMS by ALBERT MULLER

Halloween, as we all well know, is a holy day for fans of horror. Young and old alike revel in the holiday, either by creating new memories or drifting away in old ones, wrapping up tight in a safety blanket of enjoyable frights, candy, and all the darkly colorful accoutrements of the season. Jack O'Lanterns, ghosts, witches, monsters, black cats, and the like: these are our banners, our sigils, all our very souls on this most special day.

So what's better than celebrating it with one's favorite horror movies? Not much, if you ask me. Certain people go for their absolute top of the chart Best Of lists, some choose flicks that best represent the day to them, and yet others go straight to the nostalgia pile and watch the ones that made them feel as they did as a child. However you may choose to get down, I am here to tell you that there's no incorrect way to do it -- to commemorate Halloween RIGHT, all you have to do is love it. It's just that simple, cut and dried, end of story, period.

The different lists people come up with to watch Halloween always fascinate and please me, as do the reasons they have for choosing them. "This scared the piss out of me when I was 10, I had nightmares for weeks!" is a great one. "My (insert family member or friend here) showed it to me one year and I've been over the harvest moon for it ever since" is another. Just hearing all these personal testimonials is like filling myself up with Halloween love and it's a remarkable sensation that I'll never get tired of. Speaking of what will never get old, I'd like to share the three films that, over the years, have become my very own Must Watch Films on my most favorite holiday, and the order in which I've perfected the way I best enjoy viewing them.

First up: Tim Burton's 1999 film SLEEPY HOLLOW. I was lucky enough to catch this in the theater and you could never have prepared me for how deeply I would fall for with this love letter to the Hammer films of yore. In fact, it immediately shot to the top of my own list of favorite Burton flicks (pushing previous No.1 title holder

BEETLEJUICE aside with an ancient, gnarled hand) -- I had no inkling at the time that it would become a yearly staple of my Halloween viewing but I for damn sure had a blast watching it. I start off with this one because it's not only funny and gory and sports some top notch performances from a game cast (which is LOADED with heavy hitters and character actor legends, by the way), but due to the atmosphere it's literally dripping with. The way everything LOOKS -- dig that exquisite photography by legendary DP Emmanuel Lubezki -- is a sheer delight for my senses and gets me in a Halloween mood before the opening scene has concluded. You can all but feel the chilled mist floating in the air on your skin, hear the crackling of dead leaves under your feet, and smell the wafting smoke and scents of spice...maybe even a hint of coppery blood. It's like the flick inhales cinema and exhales Halloween, and that more than anything is why I now kick off every year's holiday in such style. (Plus, I am a total sucker for the too-bright stage blood used in the flick -- again, shades of old 70's horror pictures -- that reminds me of so much melted candle wax. It's fucking lovely.)

Second up: the new horror classic TRICK R' TREAT from writer/director Michael Dougherty. Between this and the Christmas themed winner KRAMPUS, this dude has staked a claim as being the reigning champion of genre holiday films, as he is 2-for-2 thus far. Now I'm wondering if he'll ever make one about a monstrous Easter Bunny (would watch, HARD) -- but I digress. Since its release 10 (!) years ago, this movie has become rightly beloved by the horror community, and you'll find it on many, many lists of people deciding to observe Samhain like the best kind of savages. Coincidentally, that's precisely why I choose this as the second flick to watch; while SLEEPY HOLLOW is all about immersing myself in the mood of the day, TRICK R' TREAT is how I truly memorialize it. My personal favorite flick set ON the day (and pretty much everybody's, at that) is coming up, but this is the movie that I'd say is the very best at being ABOUT Halloween ever made. The customs, the lore, the history, the fears -- it's everything we love all wrapped up in four interweaving tales, told with a terrific sense of humor and stellar eye (and if you need help with those just say the word, Billy Wilkins) for what makes the season so iconic. I'm talking about everything from the costumes to the decorations to all the things that go bump in the night, just outside your view...or perhaps right outside your front door, or maybe even your bedroom window. Why don't you go take a look? I'm sure it's just the wind.

Third and last up: I mean, come on now. It's GOTTA be John Carpenter's seminal 1978 slasher HALLOWEEN. This is a perfect movie; any and all arguments end there for me. What the greatest living director of horror films (and the greatest of all time, in this writer's opinion) did with this flick flat-out changed the game. There's definitely a case to be made that he was building upon the work that other films before him had laid out previously, almost as a roadmap leading Carpenter to creating this masterpiece (films such as PEEPING TOM, PSYCHO, and BLACK CHRISTMAS come immediately to mind) -- but it's HOW he did it that makes this movie remain ridiculously effective almost 40 goddamned years later. The simple yet insistently chilling score from Carpenter himself. The iconic Shape and his mask. The original Final Girl we all fell in love with, the one we rooted and were terrified for, Laurie Strode (played so memorably by soon-to-be-Scream Queen Jamie Lee Curtis). The way Michael Myers seemed to be fucking EVERYWHERE, ready to step out of any shadow, stand up from behind any object, and the steady, unstoppable intent of his approach when he was coming directly for you. This film is John Carpenter declaring "Pay attention -- there's a new sheriff in town, everyone." And all of us did. The master is just that phenomenal.

Even though this article may be about the three movies I've loyally watched as a concrete group for roughly a decade now, I would like to include as an honorable mention one newer flick that very recently has become one I've decided to end the evening with every year on out, and that's the WNUF HALLOWEEN SPECIAL from 2013. This loving recreation of vintage 1980's Halloween night television is note-perfect, right down to the fake commercials that I would SWEAR I've seen before, and simply damn well done. It's like stepping into a time machine for those of us lucky to grow up and/or be of a specific age in that decade. Watching this actually feels like the exact thing that would be playing on my local station after I got home from trick or treating, sat down in the center of my living room floor in front of the TV, dumped my pillowcase full of candy onto the floor, and dug into a feast for my eyes, ears, and stomach. It's ALL treat.

There's probably somewhere in the neighborhood of one hundred or more killer flicks to watch on Halloween, but those are the ones I make sure I NEVER miss on that holiest of days -- after all, I'm a fan of horror and have been since I was probably 6 or 7, and as such I have my own Must Watch list. Every year I throw different ones in and around them, but even if I only have time for a few they're the ones that just HAVE to be seen, and they have yet to fail me. Loyalty born out of consistency can't be overrated, in my book.

So, in conclusion: may you all have your own special fright flicks to view and enjoy this and every year, and may you all have the very greatest of days and joyfully darkest of nights -- HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

GUEST POST! JOHN CARPENTER: MASTERFUL HORROR by ALBERT MULLER

Original art by Stephanie Murr 2016

Where to start with John Carpenter, exactly? Do you start at the beginning? With his childhood in Bowling Green, Kentucky, growing up the son of a classically trained composer & music professor (a detail that could have some connection to his own musical abilities)? Do you jump straight to his years in film school, where as a student at USC he helped make a short film called "The Resurrection of Broncho Billy," which ended up winning the Academy Award for Best Live Action Short Film? Interesting and auspicious, to be sure, but one could easily begin with the current period of his career. As of this writing it has been six years since a new John Carpenter film has premiered before audiences, yet he seems energized recently after releasing not just one album of original musical material but two, and has been touring the globe in support of those new releases as well as playing his older film-score favorites to sold out, appreciative crowds.

It's not a bad time to be John Carpenter. Sure -- it could be BETTER, but when has that not ever been the case? I can't think of another director who was so consistently and almost problematically ahead of his time; not because the movies weren't good, but because they were often a masterpiece of one kind or another that was simply too much for audiences at the time to appreciate. Look at The Thing, today rightly considered one of the greatest horror films ever made in the history of the medium. Witness the love Big Trouble In Little China gets from people who grew up with it on cable or VHS, or have discovered it in the last decade or so, and remember that at the time it was released that it was considered a giant failure. Neither of these examples are news to anyone who follows or has interest in these sorts of things, and this legend that's grown up around the man as being, as his first onscreen antihero Napoleon Wilson would also be thought of, "a man out of time" is now old hat to many. We hear it and almost dismiss it -- water's wet, the sky is blue, and John Carpenter shoulda had a better career. He shoulda been more appreciated when he was really going for it.

Well, he wasn't. And yes, this is a shame. Perhaps if The Thing had been the hit it should have been things would have been different (it almost certainly would have been). Prevailing wisdom tends to blame the period of time the film was released for the audience's unwillingness to follow Carpenter into the nihilism & cynicism of that film, having just left the dark decade of the 70's and their predilection for something uplifting like E.T. (released earlier that same summer of 1982), which became the highest grossing film of all time. The Thing didn't even become one of the highest grossing horror films of all time; it flopped unceremoniously and, as Carpenter himself will tell anyone who asks him, was not so much rejected by the general public as it was despised. "Hated," he has said on more than one occasion. Which is something that seems ridiculous now, but still -- that happened (and it happened to Carpenter more than once, this was merely the first time the perception of failure would get its claws into him).

It doesn't seem to help now when it's pointed out to Carpenter that The Thing is beloved, is appreciated, is one of The Very Best That Has Ever Been -- and really, why would it? Just because he HAD made a great film (no one really argues that point anymore except for the contrary or agenda driven) doesn't mean it was accepted as such at the time. The reality was that Carpenter's talent did not fail him, nor did the movie he helmed fail as a film. But the moviegoing public of the time could give a flying fuck about his movie, did not go, and ultimately WE as a whole failed him. We hurt him with our rejection, and I'll repeat: how could he not take this personally to a degree? The man makes one of the greatest horror films the world has ever seen, then and now, and mainly no one seems to care. Carpenter's heart was broken, and it was the disgust and indifference carried within that rejection that did it. Yet he soldiered on.

This is where the narrative splits, if we're going alternate Fringe-style universes and paths. Had The Thing been the hit everyone was hoping for, Carpenter would have moved right to an adaptation of Stephen King's novel Firestarter that he was already prepping for Universal Studios. Had that movie come to pass, it's safe to say that Carpenter's career would have been markedly different. As much as the fans of Firestarter (they're out there) may love Mark L. Lester's take on the material, this much is known: Mark L. Lester is not John Carpenter. It's safe to say that Carpenter would have brought something different to the whole enterprise, and likely made a better movie overall. But that never happened -- at least not in this timeline. What happened in our world was this: The Thing came out. No one went. Those that did, fucking hated it (by and large -- remember, we're talking not just about perception but the reaction of the film watching populace as a WHOLE -- if we're talking just about the reaction of the hardcore horror fans then we're talking about something else entirely, even if the flick was too much even for some of THEM). So Universal Pictures read some writing on the wall without bothering to have someone translate it for them first, and their reaction was to remove Carpenter from their Firestarter adaptation. His reaction to this was to simply go out and get a job directing -- that is, after all, what he was. He made movies. If it wasn't going to be a big damned headache, he felt he could deliver something solid based on the material, and (this is a HUGE and) if you paid him properly, there was a discussion to be had there. That's how Christine came about with Columbia Pictures; most interviews Carpenter has given regarding that movie, in print and on film, are him simply saying "it was a job, and I was a director who needed a movie to make and a job to do," more or less. From there he took another gig with Columbia making Starman -- I have always loved the irony in that, as ultimately he ended up directing the movie that Columbia essentially pulled off a baseball trade with Universal Studios for when they swapped it for E.T.

Sidenote: this is absolutely true -- each studio had done research that had them believing, regardless of the quality of these two scripts, that there wasn't an audience out there for the one they currently had (really). Somehow they made a deal between them for the script the other studio owned. Spielberg made E.T. and we all know what happened with that (John Carpenter remembers it well); Carpenter ends up directing Starman a couple years down the line...you may be aware that it is not as well remembered as E.T. is. Even if, as I and some others feel, it is a very, very good movie.

Circling back to my earlier point -- it's not a bad time to be John Carpenter. When it comes to the films, he sums it up with "Eventually, they've all made money." Most importantly to us as fans, they still hold up. As a genre director, some may look down their noses at him, but the fact remains that there are legions of us who dismiss those snobs out of hand because the pure truth of the matter is this: John Carpenter is the greatest director of horror films there's ever been. Some may read that sentence and disagree, but think about it. Who's better? Who had a longer, more sustained run than John Carpenter did, in the entire history of genre cinema? Sure, we can drop names like Hitchcock (one would be an idiot not to include that master filmmaker), Wes Craven (without doubt another master whose films will live on for a very long time), George A. Romero (who basically INVENTED an entire genre that shows no signs of going away anytime soon, and perhaps more than any other horror director introduced strong, if often blatant, social commentary into his work), or even Guillermo Del Toro if we're talking about directors of our time (and when it comes to Del Toro we positively SHOULD because there has never been a creative genius quite like him, one that we are all very lucky to have). All of those directors, and others I didn't name but may be your personal favorite, produced a number of strong entries ranging from good-to-great that shall undoubtedly enjoy a sustained and celebrated shelf life among horror fans.

But for my money, if we're taking into account both quality as well as quantity, it's impossible to beat Carpenter as the single best director the genre has given us. You can't do it. You simply can't. All you have to do is look back at when it was the BEST time to be John Carpenter: the 1980's.

Second sidenote: to be clear, when I say "the BEST time" what I mean is that this is the era when he produced almost all of his finest work, not that he had a particularly easy time of making them or getting projects off the ground (here's where I pour one out for his never produced remake of Creature From The Black Lagoon, a flick that was announced as an upcoming film of his on a couple of different occasions that never came to pass...can you imagine?) 

Carpenter started his string of winners back in 1976 with his first full feature film (Dark Star was a student film that was turned into a feature) Assault On Precinct 13 and truly broke out with 1978's Halloween. We're all familiar with those -- and if you're not, what are you doing, go watch them NOW -- and since this is an overview of his Eighties work, we're clearly starting with 1980's wonderfully atmospheric and spooky ghosts-on-a-rampage-of-revenge flick The Fog, which saw him collaborating with co-writer/producer Debra Hill again. Reteaming with Jamie Lee Curtis and Nancy Loomis from Halloween, the film marks the first time Carpenter worked with Tom Atkins, Janet Leigh, Hal Holbrook and (in her own first big screen turn) Adrienne Barbeau, his wife at the time. Despite some reshoots after Carpenter viewed a rough cut of a film he felt just didn't play, which added the eerie opening sequence of the town being affected by spectral forces along with a couple insert shots of gore and some extra onscreen kills, The Fog as we all know it still gets it done. It's a refreshingly straightforward ghost story that's simply gorgeous to look at (as with most of his Eighties output, Carpenter's director of photography on The Fog was the great Dean Cundey, who outdid himself here) as well as listen to; the sound design is sharp and effective and Carpenter provides one of the most haunting scores in his filmography. A superb campfire tale-type horror flick (witness the great John Houseman's cameo in the opening sequence for proof of this), The Fog is a solid entry in the Carpenter canon.

For 1981's Escape From New York, Carpenter fought to cast an actor he'd worked with previously in the made-for-TV miniseries Elvis, one who was trying to move beyond his Disney roots: Kurt Russell. As we all know, and have reaped the many rewards of, Carpenter won the battle and, working closely with Russell, a new screen icon was born in Snake Plissken. Having already dipped his toes into the waters of the antihero (as previously mentioned) with Assault on Precinct 13, Carpenter here dove headfirst into the pool of the grizzled, cynical badass brimming with a deep distrust of a system that's done him wrong and hard-earned contempt for corrupt authority figures & institutions. If all Escape From New York had done was introduce the masses to Snake Plissken we'd think of it as a resounding success, but Carpenter, like his protagonist, wasn't feeling so great about the social situation in America. Unlike Plissken, he had some things he had to say about it (a little more, anyway) and went about putting notes of satire and pointed commentary into his propulsive action-thriller. The spoonful of rich, dark genre sweetness went down easy alongside Carpenter's other, angrier notions about a country so out of control with crime that the whole of New York City has been turned into a prison for the nation's many outlaws. Years later Carpenter & Russell would reunite for a sequel (Escape From L.A.) that was less well received, and is one of the rare Carpenter movies that hasn't gone a thorough reassessment among film fans and achieved favor years after it was released. I think it should be, regardless of its semi-remaquel status; for me, the original Escape From New York is the gritty, brooding graphic novel while Escape From L.A. would be the broader, goofier comic book, and both are a lot of fun (even if only one is a bonafide classic). Regardless, Escape From New York was a hugely influential film -- alongside that same year's Australian release Mad Max 2 (known to us ugly Americans as The Road Warrior), it created a kind of cinematic shorthand for post-apocalyptic/urban nightmare settings that was ripped off time and time again -- and a success with audiences.

However, as I said before, The Thing (the second cinematic collaboration between Carpenter & Russell) did not exactly set audiences afire in 1982 upon release. You sure couldn't tell these days, though. This adaptation of the John W. Campbell story "Who Goes There?" (previously filmed in 1951 and produced by Carpenter's hero Howard Hawks as The Thing From Another World), scripted by Bill Lancaster, was and is the high water mark in the horror master's career. The story involving a group of scientists besieged by an monstrous shapeshifting alien in a remote Antarctic outpost played upon the terrors of the unknown right up until FX wunderkind Rob Bottin's outrageously intricate and beautifully crafted practical effects creations took center stage. There's been some speculation throughout the years that the unrelenting viciousness and flesh-tearing gore in these scenes are also what contributed to audiences turning on the film, which is bitterly ironic as the mind-blowing creature work from Bottin (with an assist from Stan Winston in one key scene) have continued to stand the test of time and are STILL as effective today as they were over 30 years ago. Add on top of that the stellar ensemble work from a cast of extraordinary character actors (led by Russell as pragmatic, no-fucks-to-give R.J. "Mac" MacReady) perfectly sketched by Lancaster; the evocative chill of the location you can almost feel through your screen; stark, icy visuals perfectly captured by ace DP Cundey, still as good as the game; as well as (in one of only a handful of films not scored by Carpenter himself) a haunting score by film legend Ennio Morricone. All of these add up to a nail-biting exercise in fear that hasn't been topped before or since, I feel. If asked -- and often even if I'm not -- I'm always going to put The Thing out there as the best horror movie ever made. If you haven't seen it and are a fan of horror, you simply must rectify this. Repeatedly.

After The Thing was released and virtually sunk like a stone, Carpenter signed on for an adaptation of the Stephen King novel Christine, and brought all his considerable skill and style to bear on this tale of a love affair between a teenage boy and his car gone horribly, bloodily awry. Future directors in their own right Keith Gordon and John Stockwell do fine work (particularly Gordon) as the leads, while Alexandra Paul (basically playing the role of "The Girl") does less well but is adequate enough for the film in any case. What makes Christine go and perform as efficiently as it does, beyond Gordon's lead performance charting his character's evolution from loser to winner before spiraling into a villainous role, is almost all due to Carpenter. The look of the film is, as per usual, impeccable; Carpenter's score is one of his most underrated and insistent, his "sonic heartbeat" in full force here. King's effortless storytelling (adapted well by Bill Phillips) and Carpenter's filmmaking work together well and result in a solidly crafted film that retains its power to enthrall moviegoers.

In a change of pace, Carpenter's next film, 1984's Starman, is a romantic science fiction road trip featuring Jeff Bridges (who was nominated for a Best Actor Oscar due to his amazing work here) as an alien who, taking the form of a widow's (Karen Allen) late husband, must cross the country in order to return home before his new body dies. Starman is most likely the largest outlier in all of Carpenter's filmography (even more so than Memoirs of an Invisible Man) due to an underlying sweetness throughout the movie. Sure, it's got dark moments, some thrilling danger and threat within it, but any rough edges are negated by the romantic soul within. Personally, it's one of my favorite John Carpenter flicks simply BECAUSE it's so different, and is just a very entertaining, enjoyable story. Bridges & Allen are utterly wonderful in their roles and possess great chemistry together; that's most likely what made it stand out to a 10 year old kid who saw it and loved it back in the winter of '84 (I truly did) and what makes it resonate with me today all these years and many viewings later -- I buy the love story between these two. They make it work and sell me without feeling like they're exerting too much effort doing so, and as such I simply fall into the story and in love with the characters.

Speaking of falling in love: if you are a person of a certain age and grew up with Big Trouble In Little China, chances are you're more than a little smitten by it. I'd go so far as to say you fell, and fell HARD, for it (if you didn't, don't tell me, seriously, I don't wanna know). Reuniting with Kurt Russell once again, Carpenter brings the fun and good times in a major way with Big Trouble In Little China as he introduces us to one of cinema's most likable buffoons, Jack Burton. A truck driver catching up with an old friend in San Francisco's Chinatown, Jack suddenly finds himself in over his head as he gets involved with street gangs, kidnapped fiancees, and Chinese black magic -- and his truck has been stolen, by the way. Therefore: sonofabitch must pay. BTILC is, quite simply, a blast. I wasn't kidding when I said if you don't like it, I don't wanna know; I try not to be a judgmental person but I don't know that I could truly trust anyone who doesn't love this flick. Another Carpenter special that underperformed upon release but found a receptive and adoring audience over the years, it's easy enough to say that BTILC was just ahead of its time. I can't think of many movies before this one that so gleefully blended influences and tones as this did, or as masterfully: it's got action, comedy, monsters, kung fu, wizardry, and more wrapped up in a brightly colored, fast paced package of screwball joy. It feels like they were making it up as they went along sometimes but it never feels as if it's about to fall apart. One can always feel the sure hand of Carpenter, guiding along his cast and story like a conductor leading an orchestra in an acid-jazz improvisation that takes a particular pleasure in flouting expectations and tropes. It's a true delight, and if you somehow haven't seen it, get on it. Big Trouble in Little China is probably the most purely entertaining film in John Carpenter's entire filmography...and that, my friends, is saying a LOT.

A year later, Carpenter returned with 1987's Prince of Darkness. A dread-infused mixture of metaphysics and science teaming up with religion to battle (literally) the Ultimate Evil, the film has a group of graduate students and their professor spending the night in an abandoned church where Something has been found. Spoiler: it's a canister holding the devil, which for whatever reason is currently taking the shape of a swirling green liquid inside said canister. I cannot express how much I love writing those words, or this movie for that matter. It sounds kinda stupid, and okay, it probably is, but really? Carpenter is smart enough to take this potentially ridiculous setup and plays it completely straight, for keeps, and dead fucking serious. As the satanic force begins to exert influence over things both within and outside the church -- witness the homeless people who essentially become zombies -- everything goes to shit and it's a return to the siege story that Carpenter knows how to tell so well. The flick has atmosphere for days, another score that rips ass all over everything, and some excellent scares to go with some nicely bloody kills. I'd call Prince of Darkness one of Carpenter's most underrated horror flicks without hesitation, and I'd never regret getting a chance to see Donald Pleasance (returning from Halloween), Victor Wong & Dennis Dun (pulling back-to-back duty for Carpenter after BTILC), Lisa Blount (of another terribly underseen chiller, Dead & Buried), and Jameson Parker (plus plus PLUS his mustache) all in the same movie together. Bottom line: Prince of Darkness provides dark and creepy chills done the John Carpenter way, which basically means it is a great goddamn time.

The last movie Carpenter made in the Eighties, They Live (1988), is sort of the perfect note to go out on for that decade, as it more or less stands as the director's statement on the Reagan years of America. Satirical and biting, this tale of a drifter (Roddy Piper) who discovers that the unchecked greed of the ruling class methodically destroying the working class havenots isn't due to humans simply being selfish, stupid and horrible. Nope -- we've all been brainwashed by an alien race taking over the world and putting us to sleep as they make the rich richer, the poor poorer, and turn our planet into another homogenized chain store in the mall of the galaxy. Once Piper can see the truth, it's on. Lots of bullets will be fired, alien heads will explode, bubble gum would be chewed were it present, and Keith David will meet Piper in an alley fight that may be the single finest onscreen hand-to-hand battle in film history. If not, it is certainly the longest; the alley brawl in They Live is probably best compared to the opening battle scene of Saving Private Ryan, not because it's horribly grueling or bloody but because it just goes on and on and ON. If that sounds like a chore, I am sorry; if, like most of us who enjoy happiness and fantastic things, that sounds like the best fucking time ever, rejoice. Because I am here to tell you, They Live is indeed one of the best fucking things ever. Most movies dealing with social satire, especially one so grounded in a very specific era, tend to date themselves as the years pass. They Live is not that movie -- insanely, it has only continued to become more and more relevant with every day. One could point to the cynical side of Carpenter as to why this is the case; there is an argument to be made that as long as people in power fuck over the little people (who then rebel) that They Live will always be relevant and will continue to be as long as human beings exist. There's definitely some truth in that. It's not a shiny happy truth, either -- but you can't deny that the movie those ideas come in isn't a stellar 90 minutes of entertainment, because They Live is very much that. People still watch it today for the fun; the beauty of it is that the flick lingers in the memory because of the ideas it plants in your brain. There's only so many films that have done that, and Carpenter's is a sterling example of having your cake and eating it too.

Looking back at those films, I'm gonna say that my point has been proven: John Carpenter's run in the 1980's goes a long way towards cementing his position as the greatest horror director who's ever been. Not all of those are horror, but the ones that are range from very good to absolutely superb to the best horror film ever made. Carpenter would have other winners in the Nineties (I personally feel In The Mouth Of Madness is one of his all-timers, and have a lot of fun with Vampires), but it's virtually impossible to name another director who had that long a stretch of quality from very early on in his career (I'd say that Walter Hill's run as an action director around the same period is the only one that comes close, but that's a completely different essay for another day). What I'm saying is simple...John Carpenter, y'all. It simply doesn't get any better. And if you're looking for one of his champion flicks that will deliver the goods, you could do worse than throw on one he made in the Eighties.

MY HEROES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN MONSTERS PART 48; HALLOWEEN- MICHAEL MYERS AND THE THORN

"In order to appease the gods, the Druid priests held fire rituals. Prisoners of war, criminals, the insane, animals... were... burned alive in baskets. By observing the way they died, the Druids believed they could see omens of the future. Two thousand years later, we've come no further. Samhain isn't evil spirits. It isn't goblins, ghosts or witches. It's the unconscious mind. We're all afraid of the dark inside ourselves."

-Dr Sam Loomis, Halloween II

Original art by Townes Murr (12)

Past the halfway point in the first sequel to John Carpenter's beloved horror classic, HALLOWEEN, Dr Loomis (Donald Pleasance) says the above words in reference to the word "Samhain" written in blood on a blackboard in the school. This scene was fairly minor, but pointed to a possible supernatural explanation for Michael Myers-as opposed to the original film where Loomis certainly believes Michael to be pure evil, but the connection to the holiday of Halloween seems more coincidental than ritualistic. The bloody "Samhain" hints towards something deeper, but at the end of the film it's a plot thread that is left unresolved. 

HALLOWEEN III; SEASON OF THE WITCH is expressly about Paganism and the roots of Halloween or Samhain. There's no connection to the first two films (in fact, we see a TV advert for the original in the background of the bar Tom Atkin's character is drinking at, seemingly confirming this is a different universe, but, hey, what if it's just a movie based on the earlier events?) and there was never meant be. Carpenter and producer Debra Hill had conceived SOTW as a way turning HALLOWEEN into an anthology series. Those plans were dashed by critical and fan backlash, of course. 'Where's Michael? We don't want anything new or original..!' Which is too bad, because it has taken over 30 years for SOTW to get some of the respect it deserves for being a legitimately creepy and original story. If it had come out instead of HALLOWEEN II or just under the title of SEASON OF THE WITCH it would have likely been a much bigger movie. 

So with the anthology concept in the toilet, producer Moustapha Akkad brought back Michael for HALLOWEEN 4; THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS. Written by Alan B McEllroy and directed byDwight H Little, RETURN brought us to a high security facility where Michael, in a coma since the end of II, is being held. The time has come to transfer him (why???) and enroute he kills the attendents and escapes, making a b-line for Haddonfield, with Dr Loomis hot on his trail. Though critics disliked RETURN as well, the film did a good job of bringing back Michael and was a well crafted story. We learn that Michael's sister and object of his murderous rage, Laurie Strode, has died in a car accident and her daughter, Jamie Lloyd (Danielle Harris), has been adopted by the Carruthers family. When Loomis reaches Haddonfield to warn the police, things go crazy. Michael massacres everyone at the police department while a lynch mob of locals hunt him down. This gives RETURN a slightly different flavor from I and II, people remember 'the night HE came home' and they're not going to sit back and let that shit happen again. It's not a perfect movie, but there's a lot to love and it sits nicely next to the first two. Plus, for me, it was the brand new when I first got into horror films. The issue covering the film was the first Fangoria I ever bought, those two factors might color my enthusiasm for RETURNS, but only a bit, since the film still holds up well.  

At the end of RETURNS we see Michael shot to hell before he falls down a mine shaft and a deputy throws dynamite down with him. Michael has, of course, survived. He made it out of the mine and to the shack of an old hermit, where he returns to his coma for exactly one year. he awakens on the next Halloween and kills the hermit and heads back to Haddonfield. I liked the hermit bit a lot, because it was a throw back to the BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, where the monster is taken in by the old blind man. So with Michael back in Haddonfield a year later and again going after Jamie, it seems like business as usual, until a mysterious man in black gets off the bus in Haddonfield. Jamie is now mute and living in a special children's hospital after being traumatized by the events of RETURN, including the murdering of her adoptive mother. A psychic link between her and Michael has emerged, as opposed to her becoming a killer as hinted with the ending of RETURN. She knows Michael is coming and Loomis, desperate to end the madness, exploits her psychic link, and uses Jamie as bait to lure Michael to his old house. Loomis is backed up by Sheriff Meeker and a police force, who surely wanted revenge themselves for all their fallen brothers in the last film. Naturally, nothing goes according to plan; half the cops are tricked away, basically leaving Loomis and Jamie to fend for themselves against Michael. In the end, Loomis is finally able to beat Michael down, before having a stroke. Then Meeker is able to arrest Michael-a first for the series. Instead of Michael being believed dead and disappearing, we see him in chains in a jail cell, awaiting the National Guard to take him away. Then the man in black arrives at the jail and kills everyone, blowing Michael's cell door off. the last thing we see is Jamie finding Michael's cell empty. Roll credits. 

After the biggest What The Fuck moment of the franchise to date, we have a six year time jump for THE CURSE OF MICHAEL MYERS, conceived by screenwriter Daniel Farrands after several attempts were made to get HALLOWEEN 6 to the big screen. Unfortunately for Farrands, a die hard, well-versed HALLOWEEN fan, and franchise fans in general, when CURSE finally arrived it was a boring, plot hole ridden, neutered affair. This was due to a lot of unnecessary behind-the-scenes drama, re-shoots, and an end product that was a half measure and a poor excuse for a sequel. It was known among fandom though that there was a different version out there, with 43 minutes of additional footage and a completely different ending. This is what's called 'The Producer's Cut.' There is also a director's cut, which is mostly the theatrical release with added gore. 

The theatrical cut reduced the set up from REVENGE to a minor plot point which mostly fizzled out by the end and even the CURSE in the title seemed a generic, tacked on title. The Producer's Cut on the other hand, takes us back to 1989, when the man in black breaks Michael out of jail and we see both Michael and Jamie being kidnapped by the man in black and some henchman. They've held Jamie all this time, waiting for the stars to align and letting Michael rape and impregnate her with a child destined to be Michael's final sacrifice, before the curse that has given him his strength and invincibility would be passed on to another child and Michael would cease to be. 

The Producer's Cut is so ridiculously superior that it vexes me the theatrical cut ever saw the light of day. One thing it does is give us an actual Thorn Cult, which is not so different from the pagan cult that uses a toy factory as a front for it's nefarious plans in SOTW and ties back to the bloody "Samhain" Michael leaves behind in II. Michael is also given a purpose and an explanation. This part many fans balk at (including Carpenter) because they liked the mystery of why Michael is doing all this anyway, or that he's simply the embodiment of pure evil. I think that's fine for I, but we can't have a single sequel without some explanation that can be built on with each successive chapter. If all we had was a mute indestructible killer for eight films no one would give a shit, so why the hate for evolving the story? I've never understood that. 

At any rate, now that we have the Producer's Cut officially available (it was passed around by bootleggers for years) we can take in 4-6 as a whole, their own trilogy within the franchise, not unlike FRIDAY THE 13TH PARTS 4-6. The Producer's Cut actually wraps up what we'll call the Jamie Saga. In the theatrical cut Michael kills Jamie in the opening minutes of the film after she has escaped with her baby and hidden it away. In TPC, she survives that attack, at least for a while longer. Meanwhile, another character from I returns, Tommy Doyle (Paul Rudd), the little boy Laurie was babysitting on that original Halloween night. He suffers from PTSD, obsessively hunts for Michael, and tries to convince others that Michael is still out there. He's also the only one who finds Jamie's baby before trying to contact Dr Loomis. Loomis has spent the last few years in retirement, recovering from his stroke when he's approached by his old colleague, Dr Wynn, who wants Loomis to return to the hospital to take over as administrator. His offer though, has to take a backseat when he hears Jamie pleading for his help on a radio call-in show. So Loomis and Wynn head to Haddonfield. From there, we are introduced to a young boy named Danny who is hearing "the call," the same call that Michael heard the night he murdered his older sister back in 1963. So we're getting a sense of legacy here and a seemingly end to Michael's mission. 

By the time all the pieces are in place, we've seen the Thorn Cult, we've seen Michael under their control, the man in black is back, we know they wanted to sacrifice Jamie's baby, and crazy Tommy Doyle is seemingly the only person who knows what's going on and what it might take to stop Michael. It's the widest scope storytelling wise that we've been treated to so far. We still get some classic HALLOWEEN stalk and slash, but it feels less by-the-numbers. Eventually, the cult gets the drop on Tommy and Loomis and get their hands on the baby, Danny, and his mom, Kara. Wynn reveals himself as the man in black and the head of the Thorn, before drugging Tommy and Loomis. When they come too, they chase Wynn and company to the hospital to save the day and stop Michael from sacrificing the baby and from Danny sacrificing his mom. None of this occurs in the theatrical cut. It all has something to do with DNA and there's no robes and altar cult, just a bunch of doctors, who Michael massacres in the hospital for some reason. In TPC, we get treated to pagan ritual and a very different face off between Tommy and Michael. Frankly, it's more satisfying the way Tommy defeats Michael using runes in TPC vs fighting Michael in the theatrical. In the end, Tommy escapes with the baby, Kara, and Danny, while Loomis stays behind to put an end to Michael once and for all. The theatrical version ends vaguely, Michael's probably alive and he probably just killed Loomis. In TPC, Loomis finds Michael laid out in the hallway. He unmasks him, to discover that Wynn has been put in Michael's clothes. As Wynn dies, he grabs Loomis's hand and transfers the curse, which manifests itself as the Thorn symbol appearing on Loomis's wrist, mirroring the mark we see on Michael in REVENGE. And then we see Michael escaping dressed as the man in black. 

It's fairly brilliant. Wynn is dead, which would likely cause the cult to fold, Michael has escaped again, this time free of Wynn's influence, and the next creative team to take over could take Michael in a whole new direction-as they do in HALLOWEEN; H20. the problem with that film, though is the way they pick and choose what to keep from the last three films. primarily the part where Laurie dies in a car accident, but it's revealed they she faked her death and started a new life. H20 is a fairly great film, except there is no mention of Jamie at all and everyone acts as if there's been no sign of Michael in twenty years. In the actual timeline, CURSE happened just two years earlier and there's no way Laurie would have missed the news of the three major events of RETURN, REVENGE, and CURSE. Had those three films been referenced even in the least it would give more foundation to her ongoing fear of Halloween night.

 

I can understand the decision to ignore 4-6 to clear baggage for Laurie's return, but the film spends too much of the first half of the film beating us over the head with how damaged Laurie still is, but gives us a fantastic climax where Laurie faces Michael, kicking ass and finally bringing their story to a very final end when she chops his head off. It's done. Come back from that, Mike! Of course, the next film RESURRECTION pisses all over this with a stupid plot twist that reveals that it wasn't Michael's head that got cut off, blah blah puke. RESURRECTION is literally the worst film in  the franchise and one of the worst films I've ever seen. No more words will I waste on it. 

So, yea, I love the Jamie Saga and we're very, very lucky to have TPC available to bring it to a proper close. At this point HALLOWEEN will be limping along toward a new sequel under Blumhouse with Carpenter returning in a producer's capacity. It's pretty clear they aren't interested in reviving anything from the Thorn, opting instead to return to the tone and mystery of the original. Fine, I'll watch it enthusiastically. For fans of the Jamie/Thorn Saga Farands and Philip Nutman (author of the excellent zombie novel WETWORK) continued the story through a Chaos Comics mini-series and later Devil's Due Publishing, which connected CURSE with H20 and beyond, including what would have been Farand's pitch for the eighth film, which would have been fantastic and would NOT have featured Busta Rhymes fighting Michael.         

    

(Special thanks to my son Townes for providing some Thorn inspired original artwork!)

WHAT'S YOUR TOP THREE FAVORITE HORROR FILMS? ALBERT MULLER GIVES US HIS!

You ever find one of those people on social media who constantly posts cool stuff that you always agree with and is a hell of a good writer to boot? Yea, that's Albert Muller aka @aj_macready on Twitter. He's a contributor to Horror View and now Daily Grindhouse (this link will take you directly to Albert's fantastic piece on 2002'S FRAILTY starring Bill Paxton and Mathew McConaughey.)

So continuing with our series of Top 3 Favorite horror films (scroll down for previous lists from Jeffery X Martin and Ghoulish Gary Poulin) I asked this 'writer and pop culture addict' for his...

John Carpenter's THE THING is the answer you give when someone says "all remakes suck." Not only does Carpenter honor the original film and the story that it's based on (WHO GOES THERE by John W Campbell) but he creates something wholly original and unique and constructs an experience very few movies can match for it's inventiveness and visual delights. A lone sled dog is chased by a helicopter into an American research camp in Antarctica. The crew take the dog in, but nothing is as it seems. It's not long before the seemingly innocent dog unleashes a Lovecraftian horror unlike anything we'd ever seen on screen before! Rick Botin's special FX work is fucking incredible-consider that it was made in 1982 with no CGI and almost every shot is a work of art. (Carpenter wisely set aside five months just for creating the special FX). THE THING delivers on being both scary and gory, but also on creating fully developed characters we can relate to and become emotionally entangled in their struggle for survival. It is as much a standard bearer for great horror films as '86's THE FLY or '78's HALLOWEEN.

Speaking of...

Let's face it, John Carpenter absolutely earned the title Horror Master. As a writer, director, and composer even when he's not at his best, he's still better than a lot of the competition! Halloween (1978) wasn't the first slasher film, but it sure as hell launched the slasher craze of the 1980s. Telling the story of Michael Myers aka The Shape who returns home after escaping from an insane asylum fifteen years after killing his older sister. He is pursued by his therapist, Doctor Loomis (Donald Pleasence). Michael unleashes terror on the town of Haddonfield as he slashes through some babysitters, working his way to Laurie Strode (the legendary top scream queen Jamie Lee Curtis-daughter of another great scream queen, Janet Leigh of PSYCO). Carpenter's score on it's own can strike fear in the hearts of adults. The slow burn, high tension masked killer flick is still scary almost forty years later and spawned a slew of sequels and remakes, not to mention an endless parade of imitators.

The Exorcist has a reputation for being one of the most frightening films ever made. It's not hype. Not

only is William Friedkin's amazing classic scary, but it is a shocking and nerve wracking experience. A girl named Regan plays with a ouija board and unwittingly opens herself up to demon possession. From there THE EXORCIST spirals into a dual with the Devil unlike anything captured on film before and rarely-and even then hardly reaching these dizzying heights-since. THE EXORCIST is an integral part of the birth of the modern horror film, which likely starts with Romero's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD in 1969, where the horror film 'grew up' and started catering to a more mature, even adult crowd. Where the rubber monster suit was put away and the monsters came from within or were our neighbors. In the case of the supernatural/paranormal films like THE EXORCIST, CARRIE, or the AMITYVILLE HORROR the old haunted house moved to the suburbs and reflected the skyrocketing divorce rates and the general decay of the traditional family unit. THE EXORCIST, based on William Peter Blatty's novel is as much a timeless film as it is a film that wormed it's way straight to the fears of the 1970's audience.

I don't know what else there is to say about these picks, I mean everyone has a different top three, but you can't disregard THE THING, HALLOWEEN, or THE EXORCIST. These are films that have survived and will continue to survive trends, generational tastes, and the highs and lows of the genre itself. Thanks, Albert for sharing your top 3 favorite horror films! 

WHAT'S YOUR TOP THREE FAVORITE HORROR FILMS? JEFFERY X MARTIN GIVES US HIS IN A GUEST POST!

Do you read Jeffery X Martin? BLACK FRIDAY, STORIES ABOUT YOU, HUNTING WITCHES..? X is an old friend and an amazing writer. We used to perform at the same bar back in Knoxville. I was just a dumb kid and he was an early supporter. So I'm honored to run this, his second guest post for Stranger. Follow the LINK to get your hands on X's books. And now...

JEFFERY X MARTIN’S TOP THREE HORROR MOVIES

When I’m asked to make a list like this – and it’s always an honor to be asked to write anything for someone else – I realize how fluid my Top Ten list is. I watch a lot of horror, which makes sense given my occupation, and new great stuff pops up all the time. My Top Three, however, is pretty solid and doesn’t move about much. Well, not this week, anyway.

3. CARRIE (1976)  -- Not just one of the greatest horror movies, but one of the best films ever made. Carrie evokes so many emotions, watching it should be part of the Voight-Kampff test. Carrie is a stone cold classic. It manages to

excoriate organized religion, high school cliques, and the lack of information women receive about their own bodies. While things don’t end well for anyone in the film, Sissy Spacek is a marvel to watch as a girl who takes her personal power, embraces it, and uses it to set fires with her mind.  A pivotal piece of feminist cinema, and one of Brian De Palma’s finest directorial efforts,

2. JOHN CARPENTER’S THE FOG (1980) – Carpenter’s follow-up to Halloween has often been looked upon as a flawed film (even by Carpenter himself, according to interviews), a soft lob after the non-stop intensity of the goings-on in Haddonfield. I respectfully disagree. Not only is The Fog as scary as Halloween, if not more so, it’s the best American ghost story filmed in the last forty years. It is a campfire nightmare come to life, complete with hidden treasure, the walking dead and ghostly lepers. It never operates outside of its own logic and the special effects, all practical, are surprisingly good. This solid scary movie holds up like suspenders, and is one of the few must-sees of the genre.

1.) SUSPIRIA (1977) – Dario Argento’s masterpiece is like nothing you’ve seen before. The story of an American girl who goes to Germany to continue her ballet training, Suspiria takes its fairy tale elements to the darkest corners of the magical forest. With a brilliant soundtrack, violent set-pieces, and witches that would make MacBeth run screaming from the forest, Suspiria sneaks into your brain and sets up residence. It will not leave. Suspiria is an assault on everything you’ve come to expect from the genre, and it stands alone as horror-art. Every horror movie that has come since owes some kind of debt to Suspiria. Not one of them has ever fully paid up.

MY HEROES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN MONSTERS PART 45; PRINCE OF DARKNESS

People almost universally love John Carpenter's Halloween, They Live and The Thing, but he has a fair number of films that don't get the love and respect they deserve, like the underrated Prince of Darkness from 1987.
Having a Metascore of 50 is unjustifiable, because Prince of Darkness is a smart and original film and a strong example of high concept/low budget filmmaking. Carpenter mixes a touch of sci-fi with gothic and urban horror and religious lore, concocting a plot that's like something out of an Alan Moore Swamp Thing or Hellblazer.
Carpenter was inspired to write Prince of Darkness after researching theoretic physics and atomic theory. The story centers on a mysterious cylinder full of a sentient green liquid that has been protected and kept secret by the Brotherhood of Sleep, a group of monks who's actual function is even a secret from the Vatican. The liquid is actually Satan himself and he's been imprisoned there by his father, the Anti-God, a being bound to the realm of anti-matter (an idea reminiscent of DC Comics Anti-Monitor).
A priest played by Donald Pleasence asks a professor and his physics students to come to an abandoned church to investigate the cylinder and try to determine it's origins and content. The liquid starts to escape and infect people including the homeless community around the church, turning them into zombies who trap the team inside, while the liquid begins to work on the team itself. Meanwhile everyone is having Villains Wikia's entry on PoD for a more in depth explanation on the Anti-God).

a reoccurring dream that may be a message from the future, warning of the return of the Anti-God. (I recommend reading
Prince of Darkness is such a cool and out-of-left-field concept for a movie that on it's surface almost plays like a supernatural Assault on Precinct 13. The first time I rented it I had to rewatch it again that same afternoon, to fully understand what I just saw and I was still a little unsure of everything. My only complaint is that Carpenter didn't have double the budget to more fully realize some of those bigger ideas.
Also worth mentioning is Alice Cooper's appearance as one of the zombified homeless people. He adds to the already significant creep factor with his wordless performance.  

MY HEROES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN MONSTERS PART 44; HALLOWEEN III

The original Halloween was 'The Night He Came Home', but Halloween III; Season of the Witch was 'The Night No One Came Home'. This movie has been unfairly maligned for over three decades by pissy snobs who can't stop asking, "Where's Michael..?" Who cares? This movie is a classic and one of my favorite Halloween holiday films. Does it fit with the rest of the franchise, no and I don't care. If it had not been called Halloween III no one would have complained. Maybe no one would have complained if Michael never returned to the franchise? At any rate, go and bring Season up on social media and you'll have an army of Halloween fans ranting about what a piece of shit it is. Lies. All lies. If you skipped Season because of it's reputation then you need to take an evening this October to rectify this dire situation.
Season opens with a man on the run, he makes it to a hospital clutching a Halloween mask and later gets murdered, followed shortly by the murderer's apparent suicide. This leads the great Tom Atkins and the lovely Stacey Nelkin into a mystery that involves Stonehenge, ancient rituals, an insane toy maker, some freaky deaths, and a jingle you will never, never, get out of your head.

There has been a general warming to Season in the last few years, I'd assume it's younger horror fans who have less reverence for the original or fans who feel burned by the later sequels and/or remakes and now see the value in this underrated gem. Director Tommy Lee Wallace

creates a tense and unusual fright flick with more than a few surprises. Season is a heady cocktail of ancient Halloween lore, sci-fi, mystery, and even a touch of Giallo with an ending that'll take your breath away.
The first time I saw this was on TV when I was about 12. I knew nothing about the story going in, which is still the most fun way to watch a horror movie. As I've noted in previous chapters; late night TV was a haven and an education for me. Sleeping was always a problem for me as a kid and when I discovered there was programming on after the 11 O'clock News I started sneaking to tune in as often as possible and the 80's were quite a golden age for that. Probably half of my favorite movies I first saw on Fox or TBS or USA.
Halloween III Season of the Witch still holds up and deserves as much respect as the first two Halloween films. It will definitely be playing in my house this October and I hope it becomes a Halloween tradition at yours well.

KING VULTURE'S SOUND ATTACK 6.7.15; ORIGINAL SOUNDTRACK MIX

Fabbio Frizzi...City Of The Living Dead

Fred Myrow and Malcolm Seagrave...Phantasm

Ivor Slaney...Death Ship

John Carpenter and Alan Howarth...Halloween III

Howard Shore...The Fly

Goblin...Tenebre

Richard Band...Re-Animator

Fan made tribute to Ennio Morricone's Giallo film work

BOOK to FILM; VAMPIRE$ vs JOHN CARPENTER'S VAMPIRES

Vampire$ is one of two novels by Texas born writer John Steakley. It's about a team company called Vampire$ Inc who are in the vamp hunting business, partly funded by the Catholic Church. The team is led by Jack Crow, a hard drinking three year veteran of the business, who came from the shadowy world of the CIA and DEA. Vampire$ was the basis for John Carpenter's Vampires. JC's version was quite good and I enjoyed it when it came out. I probably watched the tape 3 times the day I rented it and caught it a few more times over the years. The only complaint I have about the film is James Woods' performance as Jack Crow, which comes off as more a parody of a tough guy, spewing lousy dialogue. Now I love Woods in Videodrome and Cat's Eye, so I know he can act, so we'll chalk this up to an artistic decision on Carpenter's part. 
The novel, as many novels do, goes off in different directions than the movie, giving more background on characters, leading them in different directions, and giving them more depth than the movie can achieve. That's pretty standard for book to film adaptations, but Vampires really gets pretty far from the book after the first two scenes. There are major characters in the book that don't even get a mention in the movie-characters that are story tent poles. In fact, Jack Crow is just about the only character from the book that appears in the movie, even the main vampire is a completely different character. That doesn't make Vampires a bad movie, it just makes Vampire$ really worth seeking out.
Less than halfway through the book we're introduced to Felix via a story Jack Crow tells his team and a few chapters later we meet Felix and he becomes almost the focus of the novel after that. Felix is important to the story in relation to the movie, because as I mentioned above, Woods portrays Jack Crow in an almost parody of the macho Stallone/Schwarzenegger model of '80s action hero. Crow, in the book, is the same model, but doesn't feel like much of a parody. He's a real bad ass, kind of a dick, but given his line of work you can forgive him that. Crow feels absolutely authentic, even when he has an emotional breakdown early in the book. He still bounces back and walks around like he's hung like a horse and a bit of fear or self doubt just fuels him to go harder and think bigger. It's when Felix goes out with the team that Wood's portrayal of Crow begins to make sense. He calls Crow out on all his macho posturing. Calls bull shit on his 'C'mon! We're gonna die anyway!' Cavalier attitude. To me this is so important to the story, because unlike the movie-which is a race against time horror western-it is about very human characters living in an impossible reality. I completely understand the changes Carpenter made. He boiled the story down to its tastiest bits, but without a Felix and a stronger back story, Woods' Crow is just too flat. 
Also in the book, the team has some damn cool equipment they go hunting with, like chain mail suits with light up crosses on the chest. I'm sure there was a budgetary issue, but man, it's hard knowing what could have been! 
I don't think it'd be appropriate to say the book is better than the movie, when they're so different, but the spirit is there. Vampires has a great cast (Mark Boone Junior!), some good gore, and tension to spare. Maybe it's not Carpenter 's best mid period film (that's In The Mouth of Madness), but it's strong.
Vampire$ is an above average pulp horror novel. Steakley's take on vampire hunting and the men and women who do it is as good as any vampire book I've ever read (and a hell of a lot better than most of them.) he digs so deeply into the lives of the characters that you have to care about them , you worry for their safety, and you're relieved when they make it out of a tight spot. Also the way Steakley writes is pure Texas rock and roll. It's got the sort of bluesy , tough, mid tempo groove you'd find in the music of Lightning Hopkins, Stevie Ray Vaughn, or Pantera. If I knew Vampires was based on a book, I'd long forgotten it. My friend loaned me his copy a month ago, and I was surprised it existed and after finishing it I'm even more surprised I've never heard anyone talk about it. 
No, Vampire$ is not Shakespeare, but I don't know how The Bard could've improved it. And Vampires isn't as good as The Thing, but how many directors were still making really cool, highly watchable movies more than twenty years into their career? 

MY HEROES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN MONSTERS PART 40; THE FOG

One hundred years after their deaths, ghosts in a Californian coastal town have returned in a mysterious fog for revenge.
Simple. Simple, elegant, tight. A great straight forward ghost story from one of the true masters of the horror genre. John Carpenter's The Fog (1980) gets less attention and respect than Halloween or The Thing, but it's a real treasure for those who have seen it. The set pieces are tense and well crafted, the ghosts are truly scary and the cast (Andrienne Barbeau, Jamie Lee Curtis, Janet Liegh, and Tom Atkins) is strong and entertaining.
I first saw The Fog on late night TV and on a tiny set. I sat on the edge of my bed glued to the set with a notebook in my lap treating the movie like a master class (rightly so), trying to figure out how to tell frightening stories. I was in love with the movie and it scared me so bad there was no way I was sleeping until the sun came up.
While Halloween remained my favorite of Carpenter's films (and favorite slasher) The Fog's minimalism and classic ghost story feel, not to mention another great score by Carpenter himself, was a cut above the standard horror fare and stood out at the dawn of a decade that was dominated by the cookie cutter slasher genre. Carpenter would go on to greater acclaim in '81 with Escape From New York and in '82 with The Thing, but The Fog is that overlooked middle child that really deserves every bit of attention as it's older and younger siblings.

Keep watching the sky, nerds!