Hump-Day Harangue: Whither the Horror Movie Icon?

Vault dwellers, allow me to take you back to an earlier time in the history of our fair genre. Go ahead and hop in the Delorean--just watch your head on the door, I don't know what genius designed it that way, but what are you gonna do? Anyway, we're headed back to a simpler, more innocent time, when horror was dominated my living legends, by giants who walked among us and filled our minds with delicious nightmares, fusing their very personae with the essence of the genre itself. This is the age of the horror icon.

Our first stop is the 1920s, when a brilliant actor and makeup artist by the name of Lon Chaney became horror's first bona fide movie star. After his star faded and the industry entered the age of sound, Universal gave us the likes of Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi and Lon's baby boy to continue the tradition, populating the terror landscape with a platoon of unforgettable movie monsters. In later decades, the likes of Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee and of course, the one and only Vincent Price ensured that the cult of the horror icon remained undead and well.

But then something happened. Something changed with the onset of what we now call the "modern era" of horror. For the benefit of creating a handy cutoff point, let's say that from the 1980s onward, the phenomenon of the horror movie icon suffered a swift decline. Sure, there were still actors making their living in the horror genre. But icons? In the sense of the folks mentioned above? Hardly.

Who have we been given over the course of the past 30 years to match the majesty of the likes of Karloff, Price, Cushing, et al? I ask this as an honest question. Am I, as I have sometimes been a accused of being, a horror snob? Forgive me if the Kane Hodders of the world just don't do it for me. I'll never get tired of looking at pictures of him pretending to choke people at horror conventions, but honestly, he's a stuntman in a hockey mask. A buoy with arms could've played Jason Voorhees. Robert Englund? A delight as Freddy Krueger, to be sure, but beyond that? A merely amusing character actor who would've remained best known as the "good alien" on V had it not been for that hat-wearing son of 100 maniacs.

Who else do we have? Doug Bradley? Tony Todd? Linda Blair? Maybe Brad Dourif comes close... I may be off-base here, but while these are all actors who have done a fine job crafting specific characters, I think even they would agree that they don't quite belong ranked in the category of the immortal legends of yesteryear mentioned earlier. Quite literally, they don't seem to make 'em like that anymore.

So what happened? What is it about modern horror that seems to inherently discourage the notion of the horror icon? Perhaps it is the stress on realism, the need to downplay the more obvious elements of showmanship and bombast that once played a larger role in genre entertainment. I firmly believe that horror films of the golden and silver ages of the 1920s-1960s were more "personality"-driven then they are today. Hell, I'd say that movies in general were more personality-driven back then, for better or for worse. Those larger-than-life figures have a hard time carving out their niches when the funner, "Famous Monsters of Filmland" approach to horror has come to be considered passe.

Quite frankly, these days, when we talk about horror film icons, it's easier to use the term to refer to directors than actors. After all, the true visionaries of horror these days, the names and personalities most closely linked to the genre in the minds of fans, are those of the likes of Dario Argento, John Carpenter, David Cronenberg, Wes Craven, George Romero, et al, rather than the actors who appear in front of the camera. This is a shift that has certainly occurred within the past 40 years, no question about it. But unfortunately, directors are more visionaries than personalities for the most part, so in the end it's a very different dynamic.

I'm not trying to say that the supernatural horror film has completely given way in the face of reality-based horror--far from it. There still remains more than enough room for monsters and entities of all shape and form, but whether we're talking serial killer flicks or zombie movies, there's a greater stress on realism, and I feel that realism, while it has its pluses, is decidedly the enemy of the horror film icon. There are standout characters, but for the most part, the actors who play them are linked pretty much 90% to one role alone. For the most part, Gunnar Hansen is Leatherface. Warwick Davis is Leprechaun. Clint Howard is the Ice Cream Man. Ahem, ok that one was a stretch, but you get the point.

They may have been before my time for the most part, but I miss those genuine, transcendent icons. Those individuals who literally embodied horror, and who in many ways towered over it. I hope we get to see more rise to that level one day. If they're out there, and I'm just not giving them their due, please put me in my place, by all means...

Hump-Day Harangue: The "Let Me In" Trailer--OK It Won't Suck, But Is It Necessary?

Let's get this out of the way right off the bat, because I've been sitting on this and mulling it over for quite a while. As many of you know, and have probably seen elsewhere, the first official trailer for Let Me In, Matt Reeves adaptation of John Ajvide Lindqvist's Swedish novel Let the Right One In, was unveiled earlier this month. For those who haven't seen it yet, here it is:



To merely refer to it as an adaptation of the novel is to be a bit coy however, as we all know that the book was, only two years ago, adapted into a superb Swedish film by Tomas Alfredson. It was a film which many called the greatest vampire movie of all time, and I would personally rank among the best films I've seen in recent years, perhaps second only to There Will Be Blood as the best film of the '00s. It was powerful, it was moving, it was expertly acted and directed, with an unforgettable score and a timeless quality few contemporary films maintain.

And so, to a certain extent, we must admit that Reeves' Let Me In is just another in a long line of English-language horror remakes put together in the wake of a successful foreign film, much as we saw with Quarantine ([REC]), The Ring (Ringu) and many others. Yes, Reeves claims to be going back to the original source material, but you and I both know that this movie would not have been made were it not for Alfredson's film. So what do we make of it?

Granted, my knee-jerk reaction is to lament the inanity of the American movie machine, which seems to have lost all faith in American audiences consuming anything that isn't completely spoon-fed to them. I mean, why not simply dub these successful foreign films into English if you're so worried about Americans not wanting to read subtitles? Did they remake The Good, The Bad and the Ugly in 1968 with all American actors? I guess the closest thing I can think of to this modern phenomenon is the way the original Gojira was ruined with new footage to appeal to American audiences in 1956. Is that really the model to be emulating?

But on the other hand, everything I've seen regarding this American version has been impressive. Chloe Moretz of Kick-Ass seems pitch-perfect as Eli (or Abby if they insist) and this Kodi Smit-McPhee kid they got to play Oskar (Owen...sigh, what's wrong with Oskar??) also seems up to the task. Checking out the trailer also gives me even more hope that this will be a good movie--the look is right, it seems to be faithful to the material, and the relationship between the two leads feels right. Also, love that Morse code ending. This does not seem (too much) like a watered-down Americanization. Some of the calm beauty of the Swedish film seems to be replaced with the typically dire, potboiler tone most Americans are more used to, but that could very well be the way the trailer is edited. And of course, Eli has been unequivocally confirmed as a girl, which was to be expected.

Still, one has to ask, why bother? If the reason is to truly go back to the book and do something different, they don't seem to going about it that way at all. Watching that trailer felt very much like watching Alfredson's film, down to specific moments and shots being mimicked (much like Quarantine did.) Sure, they're apparently exploring some stuff from the novel that wasn't in the other movie, such as the ultra-bizarre Hakan subplot, but quite frankly, from what I've seen, that doesn't seem to be playing much of a major part. Rather, it seems mainly to be aping Alfredson's work. And if that's the case, no matter how great it is, I'm still going to be walking away scratching my head wondering why it was even attempted. Or more accurately, I'll be shaking my head, knowing precisely the only reason it was attempted: another easy payday.

I'm so on the fence about this project, it's not even funny. Let the Right One In is a movie that's very close to my heart, and sure, I know the old saying, no matter what they do with it, the original still exists for me to enjoy. I just can't decide whether I'm happy about this new version or not. It does seem intriguing and well-made, I just hope that Reeves and company live up to their promise and give us something fresh and new--the novel is fertile enough ground to allow that--rather than just another spoon-fed American remake.

* * * * * * * * * *

REMINDER: For those who feel they missed out on the greatness that was Kevin Geeks Out!, I encourage you to get down to 92YTribeca in Manhattan this Friday night for the encore presentation of Mr. Maher's most acclaimed shlockfest of them all: Kevin Geeks Out About Sharks! I attended the initial presentation, and I can tell you it's a night you will carry with you till you sleep in Davey Jones' locker. Shark cupcakes will be provided for all, plus the first 10 people to arrive get a copy of the sold-out comic book Grizzly Shark and Sea Bear!

Kevin Geeks Out! returns for one night only, so don't miss out, dweebs! Get the ticket info and stuff at Kevin's blog.

Hump-Day Harangue: A PLEA FOR MORE EDGAR WRIGHT

This small rant is brought to you by BJ-C of Day of the Woman

I'll be the first to say it, Edgar Wright is THE man. I don't think there's ever been a film or television show that was associated with him that I didn't like. In my eyes, the man can do no wrong. He's universally accepted as being awesome and has brought us one of the best genre films of the last decade. So why the HELL is Michael Bay still getting more publicity than him? My god. If I have to turn on the television and see one more film having to do with Michael Bay, I'm going to throw up. How many explosions does one film need?! I'm so sick and tired of sub-par film makers being given oodles of money simply to stroke the minds of idiot film-goers and teenagers sitting in the theaters hoping to get to second base by the credits.


Cinephiles everywhere constantly complain about the lack of character development in 99% of the films that hit the silver screen, and yet one of the few directors who consistently gives an audience a slice of life in his films gets brushed under the rug. Avatar may have made a kazillion dollars, but what do you remember about the film other than "it looked sweet"? When you discuss Shaun of the Dead, I guarantee the first thing that comes to mind is how amazing the characters interacted with each other, rather than the zombies.


The man knows how to make a film, and how to do it well. I want more Edgar Wright in the films. I know he has some incredible projects coming up, but I want to REALLY put this man to work. If I had it my way, Edgar Wright would be involved in just about any film of merit ever created. I want the Blood & Ice Cream trilogy to be a never ending saga, damn it! BRING ME MORE CORNETTOS!!!

Hump-Day Harangue: Walking Dead Cast Takes Shape...

Not really much of a literal "harangue" this week, if you must know the truth--more of a cautiously optimistic nod of approval, as the anxiously anticipated AMC series adaptation of Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead comic book series becomes more and more of a reality.

Yesterday, rumors of Brandon Routh being cast in the show were debunked by the actor himself. I'll admit, I couldn't quite figure out who he was going to be playing anyway, especially since two of the prime roles had already been cast.

Speaking of those two roles, it's very interesting to see that AMC is going with relative unknowns for the most part in this, its first wholly owned TV property. The basic cable channel has been on fire lately with shows like Breaking Bad and Mad Men (my personal fave on TV right now), inheriting the throne of TV excellence once firmly inhabited by HBO. And those are both shows which have benefited greatly from having some fresh faces in key parts, so it's understandable that AMC would continue the trend.

As is our wont, we geeky internet types had a ball speculating as to which recognizable actor could take on this or that role. I know I recently conducted a poll which asked who should play lead character Rick Grimes, with choices like Lost's Josh Holloway, Supernatural's Jared Padalecki and Parenthood's Peter Krause (my choice at the time.) In the end, AMC went with British actor Andrew Lincoln (pictured), perhaps best "known" for his supporting part in the 2003 ensemble pic Love Actually. Playing his cop buddy Shane will be Jon Bernthal, an even less known commodity whom I mainly recall from his part as Al Capone in the sequel to A Night at the Museum (hey, I have kids, it comes with the job.)

In the end, I have to give kudos to AMC for resisting the allure of "name-brand" actors, although I'm sure the lower price-tags may have been a crucial factor in the decision, as well. Much like Mad Men, this is the kind of a show that will benefit greatly from a cast of relatively unrecognized talent (although it should be said that Lincoln is fairly known in the UK for his television work.) This shouldn't be something like a CSI or Law and Order spin-off, packed with familiar faces and big-time movie stars slummin' on TV. One of the selling points of The Walking Dead is its dedication to presenting a "believable" zombie apocalypse, as much of an oxymoron as that may be, and the presence of famous celebs would no doubt be a bit distracting.

Kirkman himself seems to be excited, although if I were in his shoes I'd be excited if they had cast Jerry Stiller and Fyvush Finkel in the leads. Nevertheless, I think The Walking Dead has lots of potential to be something very special, and as location scouting kicks off and shooting is almost ready to begin, I gleefully await the realization on screen of one of the strongest comic book series I've read this decade.

Hump-Day Harangue: Weighing in on the GoreZone Controversy

I realize I'm a bit late to the dance on this one, so bear with me. But this has been a situation I've been watching for some weeks now, with great concern. Specifically because it ties into something I ranted at length about some time ago--namely, bloggers getting pushed around by those who can't handle a bad review.

By now, most of you know the story. I first was made aware of it by the blogger Cyberschizoid. Write-ups on the matter followed at Chuck Norris Ate My Baby and Zombos' Closet of Horror. It seems that one Dangerous Jamie of the blog Let's Get Dangerous posted an open letter to Britain's GoreZone magazine in January, detailing his various problems with the current state of the publication, and how it might improve.

The letter seemed innocuous enough. It was carefully worded, constructive and rational in its criticism. It was by no means what anyone would call an unfair attack. Yet, it wasn't long before Jamie's blog was being inundated by troll commenters leaving hateful, obscene and vicious remarks. One of them even claimed to be Bryn Hammond, Editor-in-Chief of GoreZone. However, this was proven to be false--as were the identities of some 14 other commenters. The kicker is that all these comments were coming from the same IP address, which allegedly was located within GoreZone magazine itself.

From there, legal action was taken against Jamie for the post in question. I'm no expert on freedom of the press in the UK, or UK laws regarding libel, defamation and such, but there's no way that a magazine can sue a critic for writing a negative review of said magazine. If so, what kind of insane door would that open? As has been pointed out, GoreZone itself reviews movies and other things--could they conceivably be sued for writing a bad review?

Jamie (pictured, left) was accused of libeling GoreZone with his open letter, of attempting to harm the magazine's sales. This, when Jamie himself was libeled outright by some of the most heinous comments I've ever seen on any blog, all the while remaining civil in all his responses. It's also interesting that one of Jamie's main points in his post was that GoreZone is riddled with spelling and grammatical errors--and then, you guessed it, almost every comment bashing Jamie and supporting GZ was also riddled with the same.

He was forced to remove a GoreZone cover image from the post, when, to my knowledge, using an image like that for review purposes is completely kosher. Thankfully, this seems to have been all they've been able to coerce him to do. Ever since the IP address controversy, the GoreZone folks seem to have mysteriously backed off, and Jamie himself has not heard a word from the lawyers or anyone else in weeks.

Thankfully, lots of readers and bloggers have shown Jamie support in this unfortunate situation, including the aforementioned, as well as Robert Ring of The Sci-Fi Block, who helped get the story covered on Techdirt, a website which covers technology-based legal issues. The situation even caught the attention of Roger Ebert, who mentioned it on Twitter.

And speaking of Ebert, the legendary film critic was lambasted, along with Jamie, in an interview given by the real Bryn Hammond with the website Screen Jabber. Hammond denied the claim that the phony negative comments were coming from within GoreZone itself. But in defending himself, he really did himself no favors, describing Jamie's responses to him as "naively spouting off about freedom of speech and all that bullshit." Hammond also warns both Jamie and Ebert (who never came down on either side of the issue, by the way), to "really watch that kind of bullshit they're writing and talking about."

It's very unfortunate that a blogger could be so thoroughly bullied by a corporate entity, but sadly, it doesn't surprise me. As was stated in the CNAMB write-up, this would definitely not be happening if it had been a major website or other entity that published the critique. But because it's someone they consider unimportant and defenseless, they try to pressure him into retracting his criticism. Thankfully, the situation seems to have calmed down a bit, as someone must've informed GoreZone that they don't have a legal leg to stand on.

I had not been all that familiar with GoreZone before this debacle (I do remember a Fangoria satellite mag with the same name in the '90s, but I don't think they're related), but the whole thing has pretty much ensured I will not be picking up my first issue anytime soon. If this is the way they operate, I want nothing to do with them. In fact, I won't even entertain the notion of buying an issue until Jamie gets an apology, and I encourage anyone disturbed by the matter to do the same. I doubt that apology will ever come about, but so be it. Judging by what's been spewed onto Jamie's blog and elsewhere, I don't think I'm missing much.

It's very important that companies like GoreZone not be simply permitted to get away with bullying small, independent bloggers and other journalists. If we allow it to happen once, it's just going to keep happening, and getting worse every time. Folks like that shouldn't be emboldened--it should be made clear to them that such behavior cannot be tolerated in a free society.

Hump-Day Harangue: Bruce Campbell--What's the Big Deal?

Another guest-harangue from Marilyn Merlot, who dares to question the appeal of one of horror's most beloved thespians...

The more important question after this might be how many women are not going to be a fan of me? Yes, I’m putting it out there. I never saw the big appeal of Bruce Campbell.

I know he’s a big fan favorite with horror websites, blogs, etc. But when I started reading through the interviews for Ms. Horror Blogosphere that the handsome Mr. Solomon put together, I started to ask myself the same question that he was asking some of the lovely contestants. “So what is it about Campbell that you all like, anyway?”

So I thought about it, too. I started off like many other people, catching him as Ash in the Evil Dead movies. At first glance back then, I thought, not bad, easy on the eyes, nice body. Then I was like, okay, this is what everyone’s talking about? Here he’s supposed to be a “real man”--a hero, even. But instead, he’s this whiny little bitch who is just as scared as the girls, and screaming like one. So, if you were his girlfriend, he would be someone you cannot rely on. He would be more likely to throw you in front of himself in self-defense.

Then there is the disaster of Evil Dead II. He is fighting with a possessed hand--enough said. I’ll be honest, I actually had a hard time getting through that movie. I found it laughable at times. I understand that he is a B-movie guy and definitely a B. or maybe C-actor at best. Don’t get me wrong, I like my B-horror movies, but with Bruce and his movies it’s just the same old thing after a while.

For instance, let’s jump ahead to My Name is Bruce. Here, he is still trying to capitalize on the character of Ash from The Evil Dead. Seriously, Bruce? Ash is long gone and done with, let him go. Even Corey Feldman knew he made a mistake when he went back to make Lost Boys: The Tribe. Then, to see someone in his 50s still chasing young starlets around who may be just turning 20 is a little creepy.

When all is said and done, you have a huge fan following, Bruce Campbell, and have made a fine living out of your movies. So until the next Evil Dead movie, I will continue to laugh at your expense.

Hump-Day Harangue: Cannibal Holocaust--What's the Big Deal?

Going along with the Cannibal Holocaust theme today, I bring you a special guest HDH from Vault contributor Marilyn Merlot, who was less than impressed with the notorious film, and clearly has a much stronger constitution than poor little me (except when it comes to turtles)...

So, after so much hype surrounding this movie, and so many people asking me if I’d ever seen it, I really felt like Cannibal Holocaust must be the movie to see. I was also hoping it was going to leave a lasting impression on me. I guess in some ways it did, because I still can't get over what a letdown it was!

The movie is concerned with a documentary team of three young men and a young woman. They are heading for the South American jungle to search for real cannibals. But did anybody else feel this movie was more about torturing and killing animals than humans? Cannibalism is the act or practice of humans eating the flesh of other human beings. Granted, don’t get me wrong, this movie did have its graphic, violent rape and torture scenes (though not nearly enough).

I felt like for the most part these people were running around lost in the rain forest and killing animals. Maybe this is why I was let down. When you have the word CANNIBAL in the title, I’m thinking the movie is going to have more to do with violence against humans than animals. Also--and this has happened to me before--I think I may have watched it way past its prime. Maybe it would have had more of an effect on me if I had watched it when it was first released in the U.S. in 1985, when I was only 10 years old.

Anyway, to end my little rant, for those of you who may have not seen it yet, I will leave you with the one thing that really got to me. I’m all for something gruesome and a little gory, but Holy Ninja Turtle, that scene with the giant river tortoise can almost make anyone vomit. So please watch with caution, and with a bucket or toilet nearby...

Hump-Day Harangue: Harold Ramis, I'm Ready to Believe You

The confirmation seems to have finally solidified. Writer/producer/actor Harold Ramis, also known to fans as Dr. Egon Spengler, collector of spores, molds and fungus, has officially declared in an interview this month with Heeb magazine that the third film in the Ghostbusters franchise will lense next summer, with a 2011 release date planned. And I couldn't be happier.

Here's part of what he had to say:

Something's going to happen. Dan [Aykroyd] did write a spec GB3 screenplay a few years ago, but no one was motivated to pursue it. Now, 25 years after the original, there seems to be some willingness to proceed and apparently a substantial public appetite for a sequel. We'll introduce some new young Ghostbusters, and all the old guys will be in it, too. Think Christopher Lloyd in Back to the Future. [not sure what the heck that means]

Granted, I think I have a bit of a sunnier outlook on all these latter-day continuations of '70s/'80s franchises than some. While we can all agree that--with the exception of the second half of Revenge of the Sith--the Star Wars prequels were utter abortions, I wouldn't say the same, for example, about Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crysytal Skull, which, although it was no Raiders by any means, I got a kick out of. I also geeked out hardcore to Bryan Singer's Donner-faithful Superman Returns, and was utterly blown away by Stallone's return in Rocky Balboa.

So, why not the Ghostbusters? As a kid, it was my favorite movie, hands-down. And while the sequel was one of the major letdowns of my young moviegoing years, I've still always held out hope that a superior third installment would happen. I even remember getting excited some years back thanks to rumors of a new GB flick that would include Chris Farley and Chris Rock amongst the new generation. Sadly, that never came to pass.

But now, this. Ghostbusters fever has been growing lately, as the '80s generation is now at the height of its decision-making power in Hollywood (see Transformers and G.I. Joe. Well, on second thought, don't.) We've seen major excitement this year surrounding just a new video game using the original cast members, so it was a no-brainer that interest would resurface in a Ghostbusters 3.

The optimistic part of me believes that with this many people involved--quality individuals mind you, the Murrays, Weavers and Reitmans of the world--it would have to be an impressive project to get them all on board at all (although I can hear the Crystal Skull haters chiming in on that one). Still, I particularly feel this way about Bill Murray. The guy has gone on to be such a bigger deal than he was even then, and has a rep for choosing solid roles. He has nothing to gain by being part of a lackluster sequel, and I'd bet he was the toughest one to convince to take part at all. So it gives me hope that he'd consent to be involved.

What also gives me hope is a very interesting tidbit of information leaked earlier this month. It's divided the fan community, but you can count me among the intrigued. Apparently, while promoting Avatar to the press, Sigourney Weaver let slip that in the new movie, Dr. Peter Venkman will be... a ghost.

If you've been monitoring the news, then that's no news to you, but I have to say that it has me more jazzed than ever. Talk about throwing the status quo out the window and going all-out! With Venkman as a spook, this will definitely be no by-the-numbers nostalgia-driven reunion movie. This is something different, unique, and interesting. This shakes things up.

What will be the dynamic? Will he be at odds with his fellow Busters since crossing over to the other team? Will he still be a part of the team, even in phantasm form? What, if anything, will be his relationship with Dana, and their son Oscar--who, at this point, is rumored to have grown up to be one of the famous paranormal investigators and eliminators?

Add to this the fact that the guys behind the American version of The Office are penning the script (possibly based on Dan Akroyd's older treatment?) and this is shaping up to be something of a potentially highly entertaining nature. It's been two decades since the boys in gray donned their proton packs (unless you count Ray Stantz' 1995 cameo in the Casper movie, which I sure as hell don't), and I'm more than ready to welcome them with open arms.

Back off man, their scientists.

From the Vault archive: My picks for the young Ghostbusters...

Ms. Horror Blogosphere: An Explanation

Hey folks, B-Sol here with what I guess is an explanation of sorts, and one which I feel is important and necessary. Earlier today, The Vault of Horror's Ms. Horror Blogosphere competition was the subject of a very angry post by Heidi Martinuzzi of Pretty-Scary.net, which is basically the epicenter of the female online horror world. I was taken aback and saddened a bit by this, and thus the need to explain myself.

Firstly and most importantly, I wish to humbly offer my sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offense at the contest or found it to be demeaning toward the contestants. Particularly the actual contestants, but also to readers in general, whether male or female--and also to those who declined participation, such as Bloofer Lady of the excellent blog Horror Crypt, a great writer who bowed out over some very valid concerns regarding this very issue.

In her post, "New Annoying and Unnecessary Women's Contest", Heidi described the competition as "a truly nauseating attempt at attention grabbing and women-judging." She goes on to write, among other things, that "despite being a contest amongst bloggers, who are writers and journalists, each entry requires a photo of the lady and a bio. Which begs the question - why aren't they just being judged on the quality of their blog and writing? Answer: because it is never too late to judge women based on their looks."

Again, I'm saddened that my idea could be construed in this way by anyone, and it's upsetting to think that this was the unwitting result on my part. This was the farthest from my intention--rather, my intention was to break up the boy's club that online horror writing can very often be, and to bring some attention to a very talented group women bloggers and the sites they run. Simply put, I was trying to give props to these women, not tear them down, and it's unfortunate that it would instead be taken in such a way. For this, once again, I apologize.

The bottom line is, that when it comes to online horror journalism from a female perspective, Pretty-Scary is basically the gold standard. And so to be judged so harshly from a source I so greatly respect, is quite a blow, I won't lie. To be honest, I very much considered inviting Heidi herself to participate in the competition, but decided against it since her site is on a completely different level, and quite beyond the concept of a "horror blogosphere" in my opinion. Heidi and Pretty-Scary, quite simply, are much bigger than my little contest.

I have tremendous admiration for Heidi and Pretty-Scary. Thus it's confusing to read, for example, on her Facebook page, when mentioning my contest: "While I hate promoting things I hate, I like to promote 'hate'"--when my own intention was never to promote any kind of hate at all, but rather to give attention and credit to talented female bloggers.

I feel the need to address some specific concerns here. Firstly, it seems that much has been made of some of the questions I chose to include in the interviews, specificially the "Bang, Marry, Kill" question and the "Whose baby would you most want to have" question. These kinds of questions were included to add a little levity, and prevent things from being taken a little too seriously. After all, the spirit of the competition is fun, first and foremost, and I wanted to lighten things up so as to avoid the whole thing getting too pretentious or heavy. After all, this is a blogger competition; we are not selecting a new Pope here.

Further, very similar counterpart questions would certainly have been included by me should the contest have been among male bloggers. In fact, I should point out that the winner of the contest has the option of hosting a Mr. Horror Blogosphere competition, and should she choose to do so, I encourage her to include those very questions.

Again, I apologize if such questions were construed as sexist. I was a bit worried at first that some might think this, and I fully respect that opinion. My intention was only light-hearted fun to take the piss out of the proceedings a bit, but I fully concede I may have been a bit naive in this regard.

Now let's talk about the whole "picture" issue. Yes, I asked participants to submit pictures of themselves to go with their interviews. Let me explain why. In putting this contest together, part of what I was trying to accomplish was to get each of these writers across as personalities, as people--quite literally, to put a face to the words. I did not ask the contestants to sex it up, or anything like that. All I did was ask for pictures they were comfortable using, and that's what I was sent. My intention was never to objectify these woman, and quite frankly it does them all a disservice to suggest that simply by their posting pictures of themselves with their entries, it suddenly becomes some kind of meat market.

More to this point, Heidi specifically calls out one of the contestants, Aleata Illusion, for suggesting that sexuality and aesthetics may possibly play a role in the perception of female bloggers more than male: "Aleata," she writes, "if you want anyone to take you seriously as a writer, it is a bad thing. If you want to be an Internet blog celebrity, which many people do, go right ahead. This will make it easier to separate the women from the girls when we get all that sorted out." The validity of Aleata's statement aside, I can't help but feel that there is more demeaning going on in this comment than anything going on in the actual contest. Again, I only wanted to build these writers up, not tear them down.

Does sexuality play a part here? Are aesthetics involved to one degree or another in the proceedings? I'd be a patronizing liar if I said no. Of course they are, to a certain degree. Although the contest is about the women as bloggers first and foremost, yes, some voters may be motivated partly by appearance, and yes, some participants, to varying degrees, took advantage of their feminine sexuality to help add to their advantage.

But isn't sexuality part of who are as human beings? And if women--or men--choose to play a bit with it, to have some fun with it, isn't that their prerogative? Especially within this crazy genre we all love so much, in which sexuality plays such an undeniable role (hence the double meaning of the name "Pretty-Scary" itself)? But alas, these are questions that feminism itself has been struggling with for generations, and I have no illusions of being able to settle them here.

While my apology is sincere for those who have taken offense, I do not find the Ms. Horror Blogosphere competition to be sexist or demeaning. Nor do I find Pretty-Scary.net's Scary Stud of the Year competition to be sexist or demeaning. It's all in good fun, and helps bring attention to some talented individuals in the field.

The Scary Studs concept spotlights a different man in horror every month or so. At the end of the year, one of the men is selected as the "Scary Stud of the Year". The participants come from all areas of horror, and although mainly focusing on those directly involved in the movie business, there are occasionally others like Shock Till You Drop writer Ryan "Rotten" Turek, the October 2008 Scary Stud.

Turek's entry comes with photos, including this one, accompanied by the caption, "It's all the heavy axe-wielding that gives his shoulders their excellent tone and musculature."

Of Ryan, Heidi writes, "He’s super sexy and knows a bunch of stuff about horror films... Ryan proves that with a 'can do' attitude, any horror reporter can make the women swoon!... Whether he’s hosting a panel at a Fangoria Convention... or hanging out at local Los Angeles hot spots... he does it being Tall, Dark, and Handsome. Check out our awesome new Mr. October: Ryan Rotten Turek, who graces our site with his awesomely studly and genuinely enjoyable presence."

Ryan is asked questions like, "What is your sexiest quality? Describe in detail..."; "What's your workout routine? I.E. How did you get such nice arms?"; "People often speculate on your hair care activities. How long does it take you to do your hair, and in detail, can you describe for us what you do and any product you may use?"; "Say something totally nondescript and diplomatic about other major horror websites... with an underlying tension about how you really think your site is better than everyone else’s"; "When female horror fans see you, would you say there is more of a 'weeping' effect, or a 'screaming' effect because of how much they love you?" and "What's the sexiest thing a woman has ever done for you?" At the conclusion, she encourages readers to "Give Ryan some sugar, baby" at Shock Till You Drop, or his MySpace page.

Again, it's all in good fun, and it helps give some exposure to a talented online horror writer. I do not take offense at this or any of the other entries for Scary Stud of the Year. I can only hope that the Mr. Horror Blogosphere competition, should it take place, will be anywhere near as cool.

In closing, I'd like to hear what you fine folks think of all this. Was this whole thing a colossal misstep on the part of ol' B-Sol? Are you getting a kick out of discovering a bunch of great horror blogs, or getting sickened to your stomach? I sincerely hope it's the former, as that was all it was intended to accomplish. Making it a contest only adds to the interest and draws even more potential readers to these sites, which was the idea all along. I hope it continues to happen, and again apologize for any offense caused.

Hump-Day Harangue: So Apparently, Ray Harryhausen Sucked...

Titans will clash, indeed. Look, I know that movies about Greek mythology are only very tangentially horror-related, but you'll just have to bear with me on this one. I'm steamed. And I've run out of refills on my antacid medication, so this is not good at all.

I had been hearing a lot of hullabaloo about the new Clash of the Titans trailer, and so I thought I'd search for it online. The first page I found that contained the video was from the website for the New York Daily News, with an article on the subject by one Gina Salamone.

Oh Gina, Gina, Gina. You may have the Italianized version of my last name that I always wanted, but this will not save you from my vitriol. Readers, here's a passage from Ms. Salamone's piece:

The fantasy film based on the Greek mythic hero, Perseus, was a box office hit in 1981, grossing $41 million in the U.S. from a budget of $16 million, largely thanks to a shirtless Harry Hamlin. Over the years, it's gained a cult following for its charmingly clumsy special effects.

From reading the entire article, I will make the assumption that Salamone has never heard of Ray Harryhausen, since his name is never mentioned. What I did learn is that she believes Harryhausen's work to be "charmingly clumsy", and better yet, that she believes the film's "cult following" shares that opinion.

You know what I think is "charmingly clumsy"? The Daily News' prose style. As for Harryhausen, how uninformed does it make a journalist appear when she doesn't even have the wherewithal to research the topic she's writing about? If she did so, she would've discovered that Harryhausen is one of the most respected and influential figures in the history of movie special effects. And that his work was absolutely cutting edge in its day, and continues to impress film lovers worldwide.

Again, I do not know our Gina, but I will assume she is not what I would call a cinema aficionado, judging by a laundry list of previous hard-hitting articles on such topics as Pamela Anderson's new fragrance line, Aerosmith's rumored breakup, Chris Brown's MTV interview, and the dangers of texting while driving. I'm going to guess she's probably never even seen Clash of the Titans, but ran it by a questionable coterie of Gen-X jackasses in the office to get the gist she came up with.

Sadly, however, Salamone's piece is not the first time I've run across this blissfully ignorant denigration of Harryhausen. I distinctly remember Clash of the Titans being included in one of those insipidly addictive VH1 "I Love the '80s" gimmicks, in which some bright light who wasn't Michael Ian Black or Mo Rocca discussed the film's "cheesy claymation effects". Sigh. So I guess Harryhausen worked with clay now. I was never aware of that--thank you, razor-sharp pop culture pundit. Because Jason and the Argonauts looks no different than the California Raisins, right?

Apparently, we're supposed to believe that the CGI which abounds in special effects films of today is such an amazing improvement over the "clumsy" and "cheesy" effects of a Harryhausen. Well, you know what? I watched the trailer, and it looks nowhere near as cool as the Desmond Davis original. It's the same goddamn cookie-cutter CGI we get in every "FX blockbuster", lacking any of the character and distinctive look of the original. Yes, CGI can be quite convincing when done right, but 90% of the time it's just as "non-real" looking as stop-motion. So come off it.

And by the way, I sincerely hope that Creed-like music is not actually featured in the movie--that better not be what replaces Laurence Rosenthal's exhilarating score.

In short, I politely disagree with the Daily News' dismissive assessment in its headline for Salamone's opus that this remake has "better effects". That would be like a newspaper glibly declaring that an upcoming remake of The Godfather looked to have "better acting". I find it a sadly ignorant and uninformed comment to make, and simply couldn't just let it go. Thanks for listening.

Hump-Day Harangue: A Paranormal Activity Backlash? Are You Serious?

Movies are subjective, I get it. Especially when it comes to horror, a genre designed to provoke feeling more than thought. Yet, there are certain movies that seem to unite most horror fans, or at least seem to be examples of what a good scary movie should be, and so I'm occasionally surprised when fandom turns on them.

I'm not saying this is the case with Paranormal Activity. But I have noticed a bit of a backlash since the movie went into wide release not long ago. What started as a cult, word-of-mouth phenomenon has now gone mainstream. And so far, I've been sensing more negativity than I expected with regards to this amazing little film.

Inevitably, when an indy horror movie attracts a mainstream audience, there is bound to be a lot of disappointment. To put it plainly, most people are not horror movie fans, or at least fans of good horror movies. Show them a psychological spine-tingler, and they'll rail that it doesn't have a knife-wielding maniac running around chopping up teenagers. So that's part of the backlash, I suppose, these horror philistines expecting something far different than what the movie actually is.

But what I'm even more amazed by is the rising backlash amongst the horror community itself. Look, I'm not trying to say either you like the same movies I like, or you don't know what you're taling about. I guess I'm blinded by my own tastes to a certain extent, but I'm a bit confused at how those who truly appreciate horror could not have gotten a kick out of this movie.

Specific case in point: Rue Morgue Editor-in-Chief Jovanka Vukovic. I was highly surprised to learn that the editrix of the world's finest horror magazine was bashing Paranormal Activity. I know she's also gone on record as not liking Blair Witch Project--but frankly, so have I. Nevertheless, I found P.A. to be a far superior film, and was saddened to find that she had lumped it in the same category.

I had to wonder, will Rue Morgue be devoting an entire issue to the tenth anniversary of Paranormal Activity in 2019, as it recently did for BWP? Despite the fact that the Editor-in-Chief thinks it's a piece of garbage? Sorry, I know it sounds like sour grapes, but I can't help but get annoyed at the hypocrisy of celebrating a movie you admit to thinking is no good, and then publicly bashing a movie that does the same thing, only way better, right after the celebratory issue comes out.

Paranormal Activity is that rarest of things: a horror film that is actually extremely frightening. When one of those comes along, we have to cherish it, we have to shout it from the mountaintops. I guess people are going to like what they're going to like, but the notion of subjectivity in art only goes so far. After all, there are certain things that are commonly agreed upon. For example, anyone who tells you The Godfather is a terrible movie is a complete moron--I think we can all agree on that. Well, I can't help but be confused by anyone who tells me Paranormal Activity was no good or ineffective.

If you're going to tell me you didn't like it, at least have a well-thought out explanation of why. I can respect that. Not everyone has the same tastes in horror. Just don't be one of those people who tries to tell me that things like the new Prom Night or Friday the 13th are great horror movies and offer no explanation as to why P.A. didn't do it for them. Are you really looking to be scared? Or do you just get a kick out of violence? Those are two different things. I can appreciate both, but I am baffled when someone tells me that P.A. was not scary. Then what, by all the gods, is?? One Missed Call?

Again, let me reiterate that the vast majority of the reaction to this film has been positive. I just can't help but lose my cool A) when casual non-horror fans trash something that clearly wasn't meant for them in the first place, and B) when a major voice in the world of horror journalism seems to be so completely off-base, and yes, even a little hypocritical.

Hump-Day Harangue: Calling Out the After Dark HorrorFest, Part 1

This week I bring you a guest harangue, from long-time Vault Dweller and comrade in the world of the macabre, the mysterious and marvelous Marilyn Merlot. Marilyn is, I confess, much more versed in the notorious "8 Films to Die For" phenomenon than I, having subjected herself to almost all of them over the years. So I figured, with the fourth edition of HorrorFest headed our way, who better to rant on this yearly affront to our horror sensibilities than she? Enjoy...

The After Dark HorrorFest is a weekend of horror films that are supposedly considered too graphic or too disturbing for general audiences. At least that's the company line, and I must say, they have some great marketing skills. Too bad I can’t say the same for their movies. When you hear about movies that are "too graphic", any horror lover like me will run to the nearest theater. They are shown in roughly 500 theaters in 35 cities (unfortunately, these numbers are growing). Nevertheless, if HorrorFest is not coming to a city near you, consider yourself lucky.

8 films that would make you want to die, batch number one (2006):

• Abandoned
• Unrest
• Penny Dreadful
• The Gravedancers
• The Hamiltons
• Reincarnation
• Dark Ride
• Wicked Little Things

Some of these movies have all the right ingredients to make a good film, but fall completely flat, and fast. I like my B horror movies just like the next person, but these were far worse than that. Bad acting, no creep factor, very predictable, no nudity. If your film is going to be that bad, at least have someone get naked to keep my attention.

I think what kills me the most is how they market these movies as being too graphic and too disturbing, which is allegedly why they weren’t released to theaters. When in actuality, they were not released because they SUCK, in plain English. They went straight to DVD. Don’t worry folks, you don’t even need to go out and rent them if you want to try and prove me wrong. Because now, they're going straight to the Sci-Fi channel. Oh wait, I’m sorry, SyFy (don’t get me started on that one).

So out of all eight movies, which one do I think is the worst? My vote goes to Unrest. The "best" movie out of this list, if I had to pick, would be Penny Dreadful. To those who have watched these films, or those curious to do so, feel free to challenge me. I dare you.

Stay tuned for my take on the second installment of HorrorFest, as I bring you 8 more movies that would make you want to die!

Hump-Day Harangue: Petty Greed Sinks the Werewolf TV Series Box Set...

Damn. This was something I was really looking forward to. For those who remember when the FOX network first launched in the late 1980s, the show Werewolf is something of a cult classic. Horror fans in particular ate it up with relish--I can remember one of my parents' friends who taped every single episode. Well, right now, that guy is doing a lot better than 99% of the rest of the show's fans. Because as of a couple days ago, the much-anticipated box set DVD release of the TV show was officially canceled.

It only ran for a single season of 28 episodes. But in that time, it picked up a loyal fan following that still remembers it. Werewolf told the story of Eric Cord (John J. York), a reluctant wolfman on the hunt for the leader of his tribe, so he can kill him and lift the curse. Along the way, he also struggles to avoid hurting others and escape the clutches of those who seek to destroy him. It sort of followed the successful formula of The Fugitive and The Incredible Hulk.

Anyway, after the show went off the air in 1988, it completely vanished from sight, becoming the sort of Holy Grail sought out at convention dealer tables and such. And now, the box set, which had been planned, after a series of delays, for release on October 9, has officially been deep-sixed. And all thanks to a couple of greedy has-been holdouts.

You see, Werewolf fell under the category of TV shows which used a lot of songs by a lot of different artists, and so when a show like this comes to home video, all the clearances for the rights to each and every song have to be secured. The Shout Factory, which had secured the rights to the show from Sony (why wouldn't Fox own them?) tried in vain, but in the end there were two anonymous parties that refused to allow their songs to be used. In other words, the price Shout Factory was offering wasn't high enough.

The company could not simply replace the tracks, as is usually done in situations like this, because the individual music tracks were never preserved. To remove them would have meant removing all the audio in those sections, including dialogue, sound effects, etc. And so a couple of money-grubbing "artists", no doubt washed up '80s hack bands looking for one last payoff, have successfully prevented Werewolf fans the world over from reliving their beloved show.

This is something that has been more than 20 years in the making. Even if you limit it strictly to the DVD era, that's still roughly a dozen years that fans of this show, myself included, have been waiting for it to finally be released. I even included the pilot on my list of favorite horror TV movies of all time, that shows you how much I dug it. Nevertheless, like the other admirers of FOX's early foray into lycanthropy, I will have to make do with crummy bootlegs.

Folks, I'm nearly overcome with rage here. Uh oh, is that a full moon? I think I feel a change coming on...

Hump-Day Harangue: I Want My Scorsese Horror Movie!!

Every now and then a major piece of horror news slips through the very impressive net here at The Vault of Horror. Such was the case with this frustrating bit of information, which I only learned a week ago. I'm sure everyone knows by now but me, but for those who don't, late last month Paramount decided to bump the highly anticipated Martin Scorsese film Shutter Island from its October 3 release, all the way back to February 19.

This is the second major studio film to be bumped into next year, with the first being Universal's The Wolf Man. What a bummer. The prospect of a Scorsese horror movie is enough to send me into fits of geek giggling, and waiting until October was hard enough. By the way, notice how they're trying to position this as a "psychological thriller", when it's so clearly a horror movie? They don't want to stigmatize the film in the eyes of the Academy, or infer that Marty would deign to sully his hands in our beloved genre. But that's a harangue for another week...

Still, this is such a cool project. Whoever expected to see a horror film directed by Martin Scorsese? According to the original report from Deadline Hollywood, there are a couple of reasons for the postponement. Firstly, Scorsese is apparently unavailable to promote the film at the moment.

But the real reason seems to come down to budget, in these trying economic times. Seems that after shelling out buckets of cash to market Star Trek, Transformers and G.I. Joe this summer, Paramount is tightening its belt just a bit. This will move the flick out of prime Oscar season (autumn), but Paramount is rationalizing the move by pointing out that Silence of the Lambs was also released in February. Whatever gets you through the night, boys.

I suppose there could be worse reasons for the movie getting bumped, so I'm not that upset. The film is supposed to be excellent, and Paramount just wants to position it in such way that they can give it the push it deserves. Still, I just want to see the damn thing...

Hump-Day Harangue: BLOB-ZOMBIE? Say It Ain't So!

Dear Rob Zombie, you made a couple of good songs back in the day, and a couple of good horror flicks, too. So why must you be the source of so much agita for me, two days in a row? Fresh off my rant on the many sins of Halloween II, I've now caught my breath sufficiently to tackle the latest news rocking the horror interwebs--that Mr. Zombie's next project is going to be a remake of The Blob.

What gets under my skin the most, as I think it did with others, is Rob's assertion that he wants to stay away from a giant red blobby thing in his version of the movie. How that may have scared 1950s audiences, but today's audiences would laugh at it.

Let's get a few things straight here. Firstly, the original 1958 Blob is by no means a classic horror film. It is no more than a fun, popcorn drive-in flick. I also have news for Zombie: It was never meant to be taken completely seriously as a horror film. Not even in 1958. Anyone who's ever seen the goofy opening title sequence, complete with cornball Burt Bacharach tune, can attest to that. It was always a camp film.

Secondly, the whole gimmick of trying to actually make the blob itself scary and not just a giant red jello mold has been done as well. Familiar with the 1988 remake, Mr. Zombie? You know, the one that is actually way better than the original? The one that your version won't be as good as? Yeah, that one.

OK, so what we're dealing with here is a remake of a film that's already been remade. At the moment, I can't even think of any other time that's happened, except for Invasion of the Body Snatchers (and look how that turned out). I mean, how derivative can you get??

All we're going to get with Zombie's version is the blob invading a town populated by sleazy white trash, as the grizzly director attempts oh-so-ironically to comment on the squeaky-clean '50s teens of the original. We get it, Rob. We get it.

Of course, this new version will have some great creature effects and some very creative and entertaining kills... But a remake of a remake? Do I even need to say any more?

Believe it or not, I do think that Rob Zombie is a talented director. I'm one of those who loved both House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. That's why I think the guy needs to lay off these retreads and focus on original material again. Rob Zombie once notoriously said in an interview that remakes were the worst things any director could do. If only he had heeded his own advice...

Hump-Day Harangue: Forget Entertainment Weekly, Here's a REAL List

I'm going to keep this one short and simple. In case you've been living on Venus, Entertainment Weekly has dropped yet another horror movie list/nail-bomb on us, and the online horror community has once again risen in self-righteous indignation. I won't go into the details of how frustrating their list of the the Top 20 Horror Films of the Past 20 Years is. That's been done all over the web, and a lot better than I could--particularly by Brad "How Do You Pronounce This Guy's Name" McHargue over at I Love Horror, who wrote up a complete rebuttal to EW's wrong-headed amalgam.

Instead, what I will do, in the interest of over-inflating my own ego, is point you in the direction of a list you can be proud of, which puts EW's to shame. Some nine months ago, I polled the "Cyber-Horror Elite" and we came up with a list of the Top 25 Horror Films of the Modern Era (ie. since 1990), which for all intents and purposes is the same concept as EW went with. Except this one won't make you want to drive a railroad spike into your temple. So go here and, enjoy:

*The Top 25 Horror Films of the Modern Era*

* * * * * * * * * *

I also have a few random tidbits I'd like to touch on today...

• Day of the Woman's BJ-C and myself have another fine list to be enjoyed over at Bloody-Disgusting, so check that out when you have a chance. This time, we look at the Top 16 Oscar-Worthy Horror Performances.

• Speaking of DotW, some congratulations are in order today. A couple months ago, I decided to take a chance and submit the Vault's sister blog to Rue Morgue magazine for inclusion in their Roadkill column (in which they spotlight websites of note). And wouldn't you know it--the online Mistress of the Macabre got her blog mentioned in issue #92, now on sale! Way to go, BJ-C :-)

• Consider this another reminder to keep those submissions coming in for the VoH's Cursed Mountain giveaway. I'm looking for a paragraph on the first horror film to hook you and make you a fan, and why. The winner gets their words published on the blog, as well as a copy of the brand new horror video game for the Wii. The deadline is next Thursday, August 20.
  

• Keep your greasy eyeballs locked on this page, because at some point later tonight, I plan on hitting you with something quite special. Namely, a first-hand account of real-life ghost-hunting from an old friend of mine who works as a paranormal investigator. Are you ready to believe him?

• Again, for the benefit of all you Venusians out there, AMC has optioned Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead comic book series as a TV series to be directed by Frank Darabont. This is incredible news, which has been in the works for quite some time. It's been covered by far more high-profile sites than my own, but I do plan on giving my own unique take on the blockbuster news later in the week. The world, I'm sure, has been clamoring for that.

• As a heads-up, Mrs. B-Sol and myself shall be heading to NYC this Friday night to check out the controversial new flick Grace in its lone East Coast engagement. We shall be rendezvousing with Freddy in Space's Johnny Boots and the future Mrs. Johnny Boots, so expect fun and hilarity to ensue. Also expect a review of Grace next week!

• And finally, I'd like to announce that The Vault of Horror has been given the prestigious (and vaguely explained) Honest Scrap Award by the excellent blog Planet of Terror. Not sure what it means exactly, but hey, it's an award--I'll take it! In accordance with the rules of the award, I shall now announce 10 deserving blogs to which I am, in turn, bestowing said award:

1. Planet of Terror
2. Freddy in Space
3. McBeardo's Midnight Movies
4. In It for the Kills
5. Zombos' Closet of Horror
6. I Love Horror
7. John Kenneth Muir's Reflections on Film/TV
8. Zeitgeist
9. Chuck Norris Ate My Baby
10. Love Train for the Tenebrous Empire

Also in accordance with the rules, 10 honest things about myself:

1. I wrote my Master's thesis on the deposition scene of Shakespeare's Richard II.
2. I was born on Friday the 13th.
3. I can say the Hail Mary in both Latin and Italian.
4. My earliest memory is of my dad taking me to see Star Wars in 1977.
5. I spent a night in Manchester, England drinking champagne cocktails with Ric Flair.
6. I had a lifelong crush on Jennifer Connelly which began with Labyrinth and ended when she became a Hollywood stick figure after A Beautiful Mind.
7. My favorite horror film is George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead.
8. I will only get on escalators on the left side.
9. My uncle was an extra fleeing from the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man in Ghostbusters.
10. I am afraid of manta rays.
    

There ya go. Winners are asked to do the same (if they feel like it), and to include the blog that bestowed the award in their own list.