Icons of Terror 2021: Icons of Terror

By Steve Hutchison

This book analyzes 199 horror films grouped in 26 franchises. These franchises feature antagonists, or villains, who have been present in all or most films. These characters are so iconic that they have, in all cases, generated multiple sequels. All movies included in this book are rated and reviewed.

In this edition, we explore horror movie icons from the following franchises: Psycho, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Phantasm, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Hannibal, Hellraiser, Child's Play, Pumpkinhead, Candyman, Leprechaun, Scream, Wishmaster, Saw, Hatchet, Jeepers Creepers, Jaws, Alien, Predator, Night of the Demons, It, Annabelle, Sleepaway Camp, Godzilla, and Puppet Master.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Steve Hutchison
• Release date: Feb 10, 2023
• ISBN: 9781778870620

Steve Hutchison

Artist, developer and entrepreneur in film, video games and communications Steve Hutchison co-founded Shade.ca Art and Code in 1999, then Terror.ca and its French equivalent Terreur.ca in 2000. With his background as an artist and integrator, Steve worked on such games as Capcom's Street Fighter, PopCap's Bejeweled, Tetris, Bandai/Namco's Pac-Man and Mattel's Skip-Bo & Phase 10 as a localization manager, 2-D artist and usability expert. Having acquired skills in gamification, he invented a unique horror movie review system that is filterable, searchable and sortable by moods, genres, subgenres and antagonists. Horror movie fans love it, and so do horror authors and filmmakers, as it is a great source of inspiration. In March 2013, Steve launched Tales of Terror, with the same goals in mind but with a much finer technology and a complex engine, something that wasn’t possible initially. He has since published countless horror-themed books.

Book preview

IconsOfTerror2021_Cover.jpg

#1

Psycho

1960

8/8

A woman steals a large sum of money and hides in a motel owned by a strange man.

Psycho revolutionizes horror simply. It presents itself as a mere thriller, but turns into a kind of darkness unlike the science-fiction approach of the last decade; a time when terror was spectacular, monstrous, not so lethal, and more politically correct. Psycho explores new grounds in regards to taboos, sexuality, and deviance, and never resorts to filler despite being dialogue-centric.

The camera work is superb. Hitchcock throws himself challenges that he executes spotlessly, as an illusionist would. His techniques are mysterious, complicated, and tease students, aspiring and professional filmmakers, and hardcore thriller fans. Psycho is based on a novel, but many liberties are taken in making the content accessible until the twist ending.

The movie often asks us to reconsider our moral values and our initial judgment. Alfred Hitchcock slowly establishes horror through rigorous suspense, build-up, and structuring dialogue or blocking strategically and with perfect timing. If Psycho feels so familiar, it could be that it exposes the ills of society, concentrating them on a few characters and questioning their innocence.

#2

Psycho II

1983

8/8

A murderer released from a psychiatric institution questions his sanity.

Psycho 2 was released 23 years after the original film. The surreal thriller became one of the few significant milestones of its time and wasn’t necessarily designed to generate a franchise, though Norman Bates is very much alive at the end of 1960’s Psycho. As we know now, Anthony Perkins’s character was the killer. He returns for this sequel and plays a changed man. Or does he?

The original Psycho was in black and white and this one has a Technicolor desaturated color palette. It’s a film that feels older than it is. Tom Holland wrote a slow screenplay that spends quality time with the characters. He creates dialogue tension effortlessly, as Hitchcock did. He keeps the story arc to a minimum as if suspending and stretching time.

Like Psycho, Psycho 2 is big on turns and twists but doesn’t necessarily keep them for last. When you think you have it all figured out, an element of surprise makes you reconsider what you think you know. This is a layered whodunit with what seems like plot holes, but it is made in the spirit of the original. The pacing is the same, the structure is as creative, and it is just as sinister.

#3

Psycho III

1986

7/8

The occupants of a motel die by the hand of a serial killer.

Psycho 2 was a solid contender to Hitchcock’s classic black and white horror-thriller that stood out because of a storytelling structure and a signature that Psycho 3 mostly upholds, despite deliberately giving in to typical 1980s slasher tropes. It now fully indulges in the subgenre the original film created, but not at the expense of suspense and ambiance.

Anthony Perkins plays Norman Bates once again and, as he did in Part 2, appears passive, contemplative, and confused. His mind conveniently confounds a new blonde with Marion Crane; his first victim from 1960’s Psycho. The script is the thinnest so far. It brings its subplots and twists to the franchise, but it mostly replicates what previously worked.

We revisit familiar places, situations, and events; no longer limited by archaic censorship restrictions on nudity, taboos, and gore. Half of this sequel is a dumb slasher; the other a perfectly valid companion piece to Part 1 and 2. Anthony Perkins proves he knows his character and understands Hitchcock’s school of thought by directing a satisfying sequel.

#4

Bates Motel

1987

3/8

A mentally disturbed man inherits a house and a motel where multiple murders occurred.

Someone sure went through a lot of trouble to shoot on the set of the legendary Psycho house and they didn’t cast Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates. Bates is declared dead and Alex West, a friend from the mental institute, inherits his house and motel. This movie is like a guided tour of the Bates lot, mixed with a weird romance between West and Willie, a random character that doesn’t belong, here.

Turning the Psycho legacy into a comedy the way this TV film does is desecration. The ambiance is all wrong, the cinematography is heavily flawed and the dialogue is awkward at best. One thing that works well, though, is that West is crazy, as Norman was, and believes he sees Mother haunting the Bates house, as Norman did. The question is: is West going nuts or is the place haunted?

Bates Motel is a bad movie with no story worth telling and with too many slow moments. It is a movie that simply shouldn’t exist. It is poorly cast, directed, shot, and written. It is neither scary, funny nor romantic, yet it deliberately tries to be. The closest thing to an antagonist we have, for most of the running time, is a rocking chair that moves by itself. What’s going on here?

#5

Psycho IV: The Beginning

1990

6/8

A psychopathic murderer confesses his story to a radio host.

Antony Perkins returns and shares his legendary character with two young actors. This is Norman Bates’ backstory. We toggle between his childhood and teenage memories to learn about his mother’s illness and his own. Perkins narrates on and off-screen so as not to lose the original essence. This time, his madness is not questioned and real answers are provided.

We learn about his first kill. We also learn what we suspected: Mother smothered and molested Norman. Their relationship is awkward and challenges us to keep watching. We knew Norman had mommy issues, but seeing the emerging damage is troubling. Loyal to the legacy, director Mick Garris uses ambiguity to censor his work and provides nothing more than safe scares and good suspense.

The incest scenes suggest consent from both parties. It makes the plot heavy, considering Norman Bates is the protagonist. As a late sequel, Psycho 4 has a cost-effective script that has Perkins talking on the phone alone in a kitchen; as a prequel, it goes deep into the unnecessary details of his madness. The actors are excellent, but the screenplay’s weaknesses undermine their performances.

#6

Psycho

1998

6/8

A woman steals a large sum of money from her employer and hides in a motel owned by a mysterious man.

This is a shot-by-shot remake of Alfred Hitchcock’s classic thriller of the same name. An uninitiated audience might wonder why it feels like a period piece for no apparent reason. The essential fan, on the other hand, wonders why it was made in the first place. Psycho’s remake is something for film students, as it has a bad reputation among horror movie fans.

As a stand-alone film, it is almost as appreciable as the original, but times have changed and so have morals. This is not the only reason purists hate this movie with a passion. The Bates house doesn’t look the same. The actors, on the other hand, live up to and sometimes surpass the original performances. We’re talking Vince Vaughn, Julianne Moore, Viggo Mortensen, and William H. Macy.

This story is timeless and, unless you want to keep telling everyone how much better the original installment was, it’s a good movie. The context killed it. Egos killed it. It’s an anomaly, sure, but it’s not pointless. Some of the most controversial scenes have been upgraded. We see more of what we couldn’t in 1960. It’s an interesting movie in the shadow of a classic one.

#1

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

1974

7/8

Siblings and their friends, while driving to the desecrated tomb of their grandfather, run out of gas and become the victims of cannibals.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre features a kind of violence that is closer to realistic torture than most horror flicks dare to go. There is nothing supernatural, here, although there is a mysterious aura to the redneck cannibal family our protagonists are targeted by. The cinematography is minimalist, the picture grainy, the sets eerie, and the score spine-chilling.

Visceral, it pulls no punches and always brings us back to our basic, everyday ultimate fears: suffering, mutilation, torture, and death, mostly. The film isn’t exactly bloody but it’s crude, gritty, and conveys pain through dry audio effects, screams, and sudden loud noises. It essentially speaks to the phobias humans have about evil, sociopathy, insanity, sorrow, and pain.

Watch a bunch of teens getting chased, butchered, and meet Leatherface, an iconic chainsaw-wielding brute masked by human skin. Depicted as a dumb teenager watching over his family, he is a walking gimmick. He quickly turns a road thriller into physical and mental torture horror. The antagonists are all played by performers who are so natural, yet creepy, they don’t seem to be acting at all.

#2

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2

1986

7/8

A former marshal infiltrates an underground cannibal hideout to rescue an abducted night radio host.

This is a direct sequel to the revolutionary The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, a visceral story of isolation, torture, and cannibalism. It is, early on, noticeably more dynamic than the original and, although most of the favorable elements are brought back, the narrative structure, the photography, the emotional vibe, and the set design are nothing alike.

The budget seems larger, the narrative is more complex, and bigger actors are introduced. The script gets eccentric, this sequel being generally weirder. The shocking moments are brilliantly orchestrated. The only recognizable antagonist is Leatherface, the chainsaw-wielding cannibal, but we can presume the rest of his family was simply recast. It is never really addressed.

It’s highly entertaining and succeeds on many levels. It is atmospheric, creepy, and the violence is no longer suggested. We get a lot of convincing gore. The protagonists are sympathetic, in some cases heroic, a response to the rather depressing and hopeless original. The first half plays on suspense; the second is disorienting and submerges us in a surreal, hostile underground maze.

#3

Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III

1990

6/8

A couple on a road trip and a survivalist are trapped by a family of sadistic cannibals in a remote area.

Once again, this is a fun ride for us and a terrible one for our protagonists. The cannibal family wasn’t completely decimated unless the script implies everybody’s crazy in Texas! Likelier, once again, this is more a remake than it is a sequel. Regardless, the protagonists’ story is their own. Leatherface, the franchise’s legendary logo, returns, of course, with an upgraded design.

The style has been sucked out, sadly. It’s not as crude as the original film nor as eccentric as the last one. It is disorienting for the wrong reasons; mostly because there is no texture outdoors, and several scenes evolve over a black backdrop. Strangers randomly run into each other within a large, uninhabited area, something a better screenplay and set design could have prevented.

The second half is more of what you want, as the odd cast meets in a single location, reinterpreting a familiar, violent third act. The film is generally gory, gritty, and impervious to 1980s trends and tropes. The villains are ruthless. Like the previous film, this one depicts strong protagonists who fight for survival instead of running in panic and making dumb decisions.

#4

Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation

1994

6/8

After a car crash on the night of their graduation, teenagers cross paths with a family of cannibals.

Whether it does it to stand out or to conceal its thick weaknesses, The fourth Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie takes a comedic turn even more pronounced than the previous two combined. Leatherface is returning. By tradition, no other characters are brought back but some archetypes are. It seems Leatherface found his feminine side; a make-over never addressed but creepy nonetheless.

Because the main protagonists are in constant conflict over superficial matters, contrary to the previous films, only the order in which they die matters. This leaves room for appreciable gore and the common tropes of a slasher structure. It’s hard to look past the ongoing malaise and the awkward antisocial vibe created by an inexperienced blocking, a bad scenario, and horrendous dialogue.

It is not just the plot holes. Questionable writing and a significant drop in quality make this one a lesser entry, but one of the most rewatchable. The scenes that reunite the better parts of the cast have a theatrical particularity to