The Funhouse Massacre Sometimes you just need to shut your brain off and watch a dumb movie. The Funhouse Massacre is a dumb movie. It's got sketchy acting and some bad parts, but you know what? It's a helluva lot of fun to watch. For every bad thing that comes up on the screen, there is two or three fun as hell stuff flying right at you. Be it fun cameos, groovy gore or the occasional booby, The Funhouse Massacre is a low-budget schlockfest, but damn it, you got to check it out! Read on to see why... Product Information Plot Summary Movie Review Things start off on the right foot with The Funhouse Massacre as Robert Englund graces us with his presence in the first few minutes of the flick. He isn't in the movie much, but his cameo is very much welcome. Mr. Englund plays the caretaker of an insane asylum housing several psychos that society just wants to forget about. Of course, this is a horror movie we are talking about here, so we can't just shove them aside and forget about them. Thanks to the help of the clearly ripping off Harley Quinn - XXXX, XX psychos are let loose. You have XXX, who is a giant beast of a man, XXX, the handsome dentist, XXX, the animal the cannibal, XXX, Clint Howard (enough said) and finally XXX, the master planner and Charles Manson wannabe. …show more content…
As the funhouse opens, the public come in droves to check out the scary good times, but little do they know, the dead bodies are real. People start dropping left and right and it's up to a group of twenty-something-year-olds, the sheriff, and her inadept sidekick to bring down the psychos once and for
Halloween is rife with psychological scares that affect its audience greatly. “Symbolism, dreamlike imagery, emotional rather than rational logic” are present in Psychoanalytic criticism. Siskel and Ebert talked about how the movie makes you feel as if you are the protagonist, scared for your life and feeling every bit of suspense (Siskel and Ebert). The movie is purely fueled by emotional responses to what is happening to the characters and focuses itself purely on how the audience will respond. In the clip shown, the main protagonist talks about how she killed the killer but he is shown alive. The movie is not concerned with the logic; otherwise, the killer would have at least been slowed down by the injuries he sustained. Siskel and Ebert laud the movie on its set up of scenes, score, character development, and use of lighting to make the audience feel the terror the characters undergo.
Tragedy hit the docks of Everett, Washington, Sunday November 5, 1916 which would be known as “Bloody Sunday.” On November 5, 1916 the Everett Massacre was the culmination of labor trouble which had been brewing for months. It was one of the bloodiest single episodes of labor-related violence in the Pacific Northwest.
One of the darkest times in American history was the conflict with the natives. A “war” fought with lies and brute force, the eviction and genocide of Native Americans still remains one of the most controversial topics when the subject of morality comes up. Perhaps one of the most egregious events to come of this atrocity was the Sand Creek Massacre. On the morning of November 29th, 1864, under the command of Colonel John Chivington, 700 members of the Colorado Volunteer Cavalry raped, looted, and killed the members of a Cheyenne tribe (Brown 86-94). Hearing the story of Sand Creek, one of the most horrific acts in American History, begs the question: Who were the savages?
On February 8th, 1968, shots were fired on a crowd of civil rights protesters and that day became known as one of the saddest days in South Carolina history. Many problems occurred in South Carolina, mostly between blacks and whites over issues about civil rights and segregation. These issues in South Carolina lasted many years and led to many events, protests, and even massacres that all resulted in sometimes very horrible outcomes but also bringing South Carolina one step further to getting rid of segregation. One horrible event that took place in the late 60’s was the Orangeburg Massacre that resulted in a few deaths and some injuries but also furthered integration in Orangeburg. In 1968, due to the conflict between civil rights protestors
Often times I wonder if people go to see horror movies for enjoyment, or is it something much more than that? I have mixed feelings about the idea that, “the horror film has become the modern version of public lynching” (King 562). Horror movies do promote violence and can influence the mindset of the audience, but sanity people is not based on the excitement we receive from watching a horror film. Instead, it is based on what is already within us, not what we witness on a movie screen, but what we experience throughout our lifetime.
On the 29th o April, 1977 Captain Cook, commander of a British fleet, landed on the eastern shore of Australia, in an attempt to claim the land under the name of Britain. The land was to be claimed by Britain as a land where the British government could send convicts; in an attempt to ease the struggle in the over flowing prisons. Upon Cooks arrival, he was ordered to follow three rules of claiming a foreign land. They were;
The genre of horror films is one that is vast and continually growing. So many different elements have been known to appear in horror films that it is often times difficult to define what is explicitly a horror film and what is not. Due to this ambiguous definition of horror the genre is often times divided into subgenres. Each subgenre of horror has a more readily identifiable list of classifications that make it easier to cast a film to a subgenre, rather than the entire horror genre. One such subgenre that is particularly interesting is that of the stalker film. The stalker film can be categorized as a member of the horror genre in two ways. First, the stalker film can be identified within the horror genre due to its connection with the easily recognizable subgenre of horror, the slasher film. Though many elements of the stalker film differ from those of the slasher film, the use of non-mechanical weapons and obvious sexual plot points can be used to categorize the stalker film as a subgenre of the slasher film. Secondly, the stalker film can be considered a member of the horror genre using Robin Wood’s discussion regarding horror as that which society represses. The films Fatal Attraction, The Fan, and The Crush will be discussed in support of this argument. (Need some connector sentence here to finish out the intro)
...sening up in this country, although not quite to the extreme as in Natural Born Killers. Despite the controversy caused by the assumed message that "killing is cool," there is important ideology embedded within the film. There is sanity within the insane. The film, in a sense, displays the consequences caused by the suppression of the inner, free soul. We've all seen instances of people "cracking" under the pressures of modern society. I'm not suggesting that we live like wild animals, but I do think that Natural Born Killers is an excellent movie which made a natural attempt to kill standard ideology.
“I’m not a humanitarian, I’m a hell-raiser.” Mother Jones followed her own advice concerning a small town in Las Animas County. The Ludlow Massacre occurred on April 20th, 1994, in the tent town of Ludlow, Colorado, the intricate web of events that lead to the events that happened in Ludlow are a look in to the conditions that some of the minorities and immigrants had to live in, during the early twentieth century.
Reflecting back on the most iconic figures in the history of horror cinema, characters like Michael Myers, Freddy Krueger, and Jason Voorhees still shine brighter than all the rest – even despite their current lack of utilization. In the meantime, an array of other “big bads,” ranging from Ghostface, Jigsaw, and Annabelle, has attempted to climb the proverbial ladder into the (imaginary) horror hall of fame.
The great director clouded his intent and motives by reportedly stating that the entire film was nothing more than one huge joke. No one laughed. Instead they cringed in their seats, waiting for the next assault on their senses. The violence and bloodletting of PSYCHO may look tame to those who have grown up on Jason and Freddy Krueger, but no one had ever seen anything like it in 1960.
A dress-up party in Texas turned deadly when the host of the party, dressed as Santa Claus, began shooting at his guests. By the end of his shooting spree, he had killed one person and injured three others.
At a time when the stalker movie had been exploited to all ends and the image of mute, staggering, vicious killers had been etched into society’s consciousness to the point of exhaustion, a new kid entered the block. The year was 1984 and it was time for a new villain to enter into the horror genre. A villain that was agile, intelligent, almost inviolable yet viscous, and by all means deadly. A Nightmare on Elm Street introduced the distinctive presence of Fred Krueger to the horror industry and to the audience. Freddy Krueger took the center stage and with him a new era of horror films began. This horribly scarred man who wore a ragged slouch hat, dirty red-and-green striped sweater, and a glove outfitted with knives at the fingers reinvented the stalker genre like no other film had. Fred Krueger breathed new life into the dying horror genre of the early 1980’s.
A girl runs frantically through the woods trying to escape an axe-wielding villain. The defenseless victim suddenly trips and collapses to the ground. The villain laughs wickedly as he lifts the axe above his head. The girl releases a final scream as the weapon quickly ends her life, causing the audience to go silent as they watch the villain drag away the lifeless body. Death, blood, guts, suspense, screaming, and terror are just a few things to expect when watching a modern-day horror film.
This shows how we need to encourage critical interaction with films, specifically realist horror films. I think you must learn how to connect with a fictional villain, while understanding the line that is drawn between fiction and reality. It is common to connect with these villians, which is the purpose of these films. No one should be able to say whether another person is able to critically understand a film, and anyone who doesn’t approve of these films is able to make the decision not to watch them. But like philosopher Matthew Kieran says, "we must also protect those most susceptible to the appeals of violence, which violent films may provoke and