Because I am forever waving the flag that print is NOT dead, when I see a book coming out or already released that is something that I would be interested in reading, I want to make sure others know about it as well. And of course, one of those subjects is on horror films.
McFarland has announced a new title called Terror in the Desert: Dark Cinema of the American Southwest, by Brad Sykes. Now offhand, one might not realize the films that take place in the desert. Sure, we immediately think of Hills Have Eyes, but what about titles like The Hitcher, Tremors, or even the more recent Bone Tomahawk?
Sykes looks back at this sub-genre of films to give them a critical and analysis that haven’t been done before. With rare stills, promotional materials, filmographies and more, not only does this sound like an interesting read, I have a feeling its going to make me add quite a few more titles to my “Need to Re-Watch” list!
You can find out more information by heading to McFarland’s website HERE.
Making and Remaking Horror in the 1970s and 2000s By David Roche Published by University Press of Mississippi, 2014. 335 pages.
Sometimes I really regret asking for a book to review. Especially when I had just finished reviewing one epic size book of Psycho-Babble, and then along comes this relatively new book by David Roche. He is a professor at the Université Toulouse Le Mirail with some publishing credentials under his belt. In other words, he’s no slouch. In fact, Roche is a very smart man and can do some amazing fact finding research, which he puts to use in this book. The concept of the book is to try and figure out the differences between the original ’70s versions of Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Dawn of the Dead, Hills Have Eyes, and Halloween, and their remakes that were all made in the 2000s, or what makes them better or worse and for what reasons.
That initial concept is what intrigued me at the start. But once I dove into it, I quickly realized what I had gotten myself into once again. This is not written for the casual fan, but for a very academic crowd. In fact, I had a dictionary opened most of the time when I was reading it to make sure I was getting the point he was stating. Gotta say though…even that didn’t help a lot of times. These University style books love to go way out of their way to explain something about a movie that really doesn’t need it or even have an explanation other than what is at face value. Here, Roche does a lot of quoting from other works of this sort, as well as giving his own insight, which I frankly think all of which is putting way too thought on this stuff. Let me give you a couple of examples.