I have picked Jigsaw because he is unique among Horror villains. When outlining the blog i was unsure if Jigsaw was retro enough for reaction. However next year will see the first SAW movie featuring Jigsaw's first appearance (sort off) reach 10 years of age.

Now your possibly realizing this column thinking SAW is nothing but torture and in the large part you would be correct. There were moments in the film series where even this horror hardened analyst just COULDN'T WATCH. Not through fear but through pure disgust for the materiel on screen. The there are moments when these films are very clever indeed!

The premise of SAW is the Jigsaw killer. Jigsaw an alias of cancer sufferer John Kramer (played by Tobin Bell and yes that appears to be his real voice.) Kramer traps his victims in torturous situations in an attempt to make them appreciate their lives as a gift. Sounds inspirational right? It most certainly is NOT. The irony here as many a SAW franchise follower will tell you is that Jigsaw is not a serial killer. He claims to have never murdered anybody.

Those he traps always have the chance of escape.

I say chance. The chance usually lies in something horrendous. Perhaps scratching a key out of your own eye? nice.

Again I'm focusing too much on the torture, which is horrible stuff. The brilliance in Jigsaw is in the mind bending traps Kramer creates and in those investigating. It really is a film series of two halves. Sometimes the tracking and investigating of Jigsaw in sequels becomes as bigger part of the story as Kramer himself. Part of the reason Jigsaw did not outstay his welcome year upon year is because he is used sparingly and we lean just a little more about him in each film. As testament to this is that he was actually dead and seen in flashbacks in later films.

So Jigsaw deserves his place in our demons run for originality. Saw is the marmite horror series. It's intelligent but full of far too much gore!

So far our horror icon's have all had difficult upbringings. Myers killed his family Issac and the other child preachers had tragic back story’s and yep killed their family’s. The Leprechaun was a little guy locked in a box (ok not too tragic but still you get the trend here)

Samara Morgan is not a knife wielding maniac. Yet she invokes a lot of fear. In the Hollywood remake of the Ring Samara is at her best as a vengeful spirit. She traps her own memories onto a video tape. Once a person watched this tape she was free to haunt them. The haunting resulted in a lot of psychological horror and ultimately Samara could cause physical harm and death to her victim’s.

Samara's history is complex. Mostly the story plays on her innocence and morality. Samara's father is unknown. She is born to a woman named Evelyn. Samara somehow warns Evelyn that there is a “demon inside of her” and the only way to stop this demon is to kill her. Samara helpfully suggests drowning in the pond. Evelyn is caught in the act and placed in an asylum. Samara is put up for adoption.

She is adopted by Anna and Richard Morgan who try to isolate Samara by building an isolated bedroom. When Samara managed to drown Anna's horses using just the power of her mind Anna lost it and on a visit to a cabin in the woods (because we all go to these isolated cabin's in the woods) Anna pushed Samara into a well and trapped her there.

Now the morality issue. Was Samara a misunderstood gifted young girl? Or a demon hell bent on causing death and destruction.

The film teases the first option and as Rachel the heroine of the movie discovers more, you begin to feel sympathy for Samara's character.

Then she frees Samara's body from the well. A real feel good ending right? Samara gets a fair justified burial? Everyone wins. Until Rachel explains what she did to her slightly psychic son.

“Why would you do that.. She won't stop, she never stops”

Absolutely brilliant.

We find that Samara is the Demon she has been portrayed all along. This is a rare case where the American remake brilliantly builds upon (and compliments) the Japanese original Ringu. We get the Hollywood polish and the great Japanese storytelling. Make no mistake about it Samara is a horror icon.

John Carpenters Halloween is often miss-credited as the first stalk and slash movie. But perhaps a lot of that is down to the films trend setting brilliance. The young girl (Jamie Lee Curtis) gets stalked by evil psycho killer Mike Myers (played by near on any of the stuntman). Of course evil Mike got his hands on plenty of victims just so as he could show the audience what he planned to do Curtis's Laurie character should he get his wicked way.

So we look at Mike Myers why should we be afraid. Mike killed his entire family (as you do) and was taken into psychiatric care. But I don't see Mike as a representation of mental illness as so many horror icons are. Mike is described best by a psychiatric doctor character in the film.

“I met this six-year-old child, with this blank, pale, emotionless face and, the blackest eyes... the devil's eyes. I spent eight years trying to reach him, and then another seven trying to keep him locked up because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply... evil.”

We're still not sure exactly what Mike Myers is. John Carpenter dismissed the film as a morality play, however the film seems to threaten violence against woman. At the same time it turns the victim into the hero.

I took Mike to be a bit of a “grim reaper” figure. All that sitting up and indestructible stuff, as well as having the devil's eyes. Some kind of embodiment of evil? Certainly he gives no reason for his violence. That's what is scary and keeps this late 70s movie at the top of the all time scare lists. There's something about not knowing a characters motives that is more frightening than a chilling back story.

You can't reason with Myers because he doesn't talk. He just represents nonsensical unprovoked violence and I think that is something we all fear

Have a great dayyyyy!!!

The entire set of Children of the Corn films were loosely based on one short story from Stephen King's The Night Shift book. So to say they stretched the concept a little far is probably a fair criticism. Again I haven't seen every film in this series. I have seen he initial film and one of the sequels where I was surprised to see a relatively unknown Naomi Watts.

So we look at our “big bad” and in these films it is always a child preacher. The most iconic of which was the first films Issac. Child preacher is scarey enough but he combined the image with the Undertaker's old hat (hey they were both 1980s which way round was that) to give him that true evil silhouette. Fair play kid! If your going to be a horror villain you do need a good silhouette.

Of course Issac was just a preacher for "He Who Walks Behind the Rows" which despite Josiah in the fourth film being teased I always took to mean the devil. Could be wrong there, but I am sure that is what is being implied.

So what fears does our mini taker clad Issac hope to provoke in the paying horror public. My best guess is the idea of children who are vulnerable being taken into a bad crowd. There is no doubt that things end badly for child followers of Issac (or whichever child preacher is the baddie in the version your watching). There is also that theme of rebellion. When children get to a certain age they tend to.. well, rebel don't they?

Or perhaps Issacs entire basis for fear is just that children can be creepy and this guy is exceptionally so? I thought this film was also highlighting Americas fear of the rural areas. (always seems to happen in a quite little town doesn’t it?)

ReAcTiOn VeRdIcT

As far as the verdict. Children of the Corn has not aged well. That said it is different enough to be worth a watch. It's certainly not your stereotypical mad man in a mask movie. Like many films on reviewed here on reaction this was a chilling film back in the day. I live in an area filled with cornfields so this to me was more of an applicable horror as "He Who Walks Behind the Rows" could well reside round the next corner.

With the privilege of time and watched through aging eyes the fear is gone and what remains is a great little story told in a dated but watchable movie.