You may notice the Blair Witch Project is not listed here...that’s because it was total bullshit. The people in that movie are actors, the whole story was made up...from scratch. If you still believe that there may still be an ounce of truth in it, then you’re exactly who they were targeting when they created the add campaign to find the missing actors in the movie...which they were hiding.
This list is only concerned with horror movies that claim to be actually based on a true story or actual events, and there is a grain of truth there...but what you saw in the movies is always FAR from the truth.
Psycho came out in 1960, and although Hitchcock didn’t need any help promoting his movie as based on a true story at the time, its obvious that Norman Bates is a not so subtle reference to Ed Gein. With a budget of about $800 thousand, the movie grossed $32,000,000 U.S. (that’s $232,898,297 in 2010 dollars) and was the first movie to feature sexuality and violence in this way.
Cracked has already covered the fact that the creepy guy at the Bates motel was inspired by Gein in the article “5 Badass Movie Characters you didn’t know were real people.” (well, I knew). But, if you didn’t read that, here’s a quick recap:
“Of course, Gein didn't keep his mother's corpse around the house. No, instead Gein made frequent trips to local cemeteries, hoping to dig up the corpses of women who might've resembled his mother. Wait, that's actually worse. But he didn't dress up like his dead mom to kill his victims, that part is ridiculous Hollywood fantasy. No, the real Gein skinned the women and wore their hides. ... For Hitchcock's serial killer movie to meet the moral standards of Hollywood in his day, he had to tone down the freaking real story.”
When the police finally got wind of the goings on at Gein’s residence, they raided his house and finding some pretty disturbing things.
“Gein's desolate farmhouse was a study in chaos. Inside, junk and rotting garbage covered the floor and counters. It was almost impossible to walk through the rooms. The smell of filth and decomposition was overwhelming. While the local sheriff, Arthur Schley, inspected the kitchen with his flashlight, he felt something brush against his jacket. When he looked up to see what it was he ran into, he faced a large, dangling carcass hanging upside down from the beams. The carcass had been decapitated, slit open and gutted.”
PIctured: Puppies, aka, not serial killers
If you want to read the TruTV.com article, you go right ahead, but let me warn you, its very disturbing. Cracked isn’t lying when they said Hitchcock had to tone down the story. Today, the collection of body parts in Gein’s house would be more in-line with the torture porn Saw or Hostel movies today. Takes the sad psychological issues of hording to a whole new level. The fascination of Gein’s disturbing level of evilness has continued for decades, as he was caught in 1957, and has been the inspiration of characters in the movies Silence of the Lambs and Jeepers Creepers among others (scroll down for one more). But the thing is, he didn’t actually kill that many people.
“Eddie insisted that he had not killed any of the people whose remains were found in his house, with the exception of Mrs. Worden. However, after days of intense interrogation he finally admitted to the killing of Mary Hogan.”
Now, one person is too many people to be killed, and two is not good either. And just because Gein didn’t admit to more, doesn’t necessarily mean that he didn’t murder more people. But, when we think “serial killer”, we normally think, what, like, five to seven people and up? Right?
Gein didn’t admit and probably didn’t kill many more than two people, he was just really disturbed and weird and did things with people’s dead bodies that we generally frown upon. This creeps us all out...so we make movies about it so that we don’t forget about how uncomfortable he made us. ‘Cus no one wants to just watch a happy movie like One Fine Day with George Clooney and Michelle Pfeiffer where two single parents struggle to handle their kids through out a very important and busy day for the both of them, and in the end, finally succumbing to the realization that they both find each other fascinating in a lovely, safe, refreshingly adult and charming way. No, we don’t want to want movies like that, we want George Clooney to turn out to be some awful disturbed serial killer who ends up eating her face off and then wearing her skin...because of how fascinating and interesting that murderous mind is. Yeah. Can I say this? Fuck you Hollywood. I’m watching One Fine Day tonight, or maybe Princess Bride.
In 1973, The Exorcist won two Oscars, one for best Sound and another for best screenplay. It is routinely included in “Best Horror Movies” lists, and with a budget of $12 Million, they grossed close to $205 Mill Us, but $402 world wide. To put that in perspective, the biggest grossing Saw movie (ha, gross) only made $87 mill in the U.S. And the Exorcist was released in 1973...so with inflation, it’s still pounding modern “horror” movies. (note: Saw movies are not horror movies, but torture porn flicks, just fyi).
One of the reasons it did so well in the box office was because it was touted as based on a true story. But is it true? Let’s find out.
“Investigative journalist Mark Opsasnick investigated the case and concluded that the Mount Rainier story, as popularly held (and which Blatty used as a basis for the novel), could not be true. For one thing, the family that occupied the home at the time the alleged possession took place did not have a boy there, demon-possessed or otherwise: the occupants were childless. Long-time neighbors denied that anything horrific or supernatural had ever occurred there. There was, however, an actual exorcism done (not in Mount Rainier but in Garden City, Maryland), though virtually all of the gory and sensational details were embellished or made up. Simple spitting became Technicolor, projectile vomiting; (normal) shaking of a bed became thunderous quaking and levitation; the boy’s low growl became a gravelly, Satanic voice. And so on.“
Alright, we get that the movie embellished the original, reported story, and changed much of the details. The boy was changed to a girl, no one spun their head around, no one had to kill themselves to defeat Satan. But that’s all Hollywood stuff, what about the reporters covering the original, “true” story?
This well written and in depth article by Mark Chorvinsky, of Strangemag.com, goes through each article that covered the newspaper reports of the actual, supposed possession. The details that most get correct are: a boy around 13 or 14 was thought to be possessed, prayed for by a few priests or ministers (of various faiths) at a rectory and two different hospitals.
The article recounts many other details about what happened, reported by either the family or written in a diary. They include: a rash on the boys skin in satanic symbols, swearing in Latin, the boy slashing the arm of one of the priests with a bed spring, nightly scratching on the floor of the boys room, objects flying across the room by themselves, blessed candles being put out, scratches on his skin spelling out words, vomiting, urinating and horns protruding from the boys leg. For some of these details no name is attached as a witness and the location of the boys house is apparently a source of confusion. A recap of all this can be seen in the Documentary “In the Grip of Evil”.
But the most damning is a series of interviews he did with 102 residents who lived near or knew the boy, one of them claimed to be a close friend of his. The friend claims to have witnessed a few things, but also explains that the spitting is something they all learned how to do really well as just learning how to spit long distances, and because of the way the beds at the time were were made, they were really harder to keep in one spot, so, both of these details were exaggerated in the articles and documentary. He also explained that he didn’t think the kid was actually possessed, but that it was most likely psychological. Although he was a witness to something peculiar he can’t quite explain. One day at school, his friends’ school desk began shaking, apparently on its own, and was asked to leave the class room because of the disturbance. But he did tell a story about his friend sicking a very ill tempered dog on him, and his friend thinking it was funny. The story seemed to imply that this childhood friend of the “possessed” boy was just a disturbed but otherwise normal kid who got his kicks playing tricks on people.
The author of this article, Mark Chorvinsky, concludes that the only living witness to the “possession” and subsequent exorcism attempts reported no supernatural behavior, voice alteration, excessive show of strength, and unsure about markings on the boys body. After the investigation, with all the inconsistencies of the reports, the fact that most of the accounts got the town and house wrong, and eye witnesses to many of the supernatural phenomena aren’t recorded, the author himself believes there was no supernatural possession. But what about the religious leaders involved?
Another investigator into this story, Mark Opsasnick, also of StrangeMag.com, had a chat with Father Halloran, one of the priests present during the many exorcism attempts. Here’s what he said:
“My “official” interview with Father Halloran brought closure to the entire episode through a series of direct questions that I believe were honestly and soberly answered. Most significant of all, I asked him if he would go on record as saying whether he thought the boy was demonically possessed or not. “No, I can’t go on record,” he told me. “I never made an absolute statement about the things because I didn’t feel I was qualified. I hadn’t studied the phenomena and that sort of thing. All I did was report the things that I saw and whether I would make a statement one way or another wouldn’t make any difference because I just don’t think I was qualified to do so.” Halloran’s subsequent statements to me regarding his observations of the “possessed” boy left no doubt that published comments attributed to him regarding demonic possession and this exorcism in particular had been embellished by just about every reporter he had ever spoken with.“
So in the end, not only did one of the boy’s best friends think he made it up, one of the priests admitted that the reported story was embellished and wouldn't go on record saying he was possessed.
Whether or not you believe in demon possession, hauntings, polterguistings, Katie Perry-ings, you have to admit, there are a lot of unanswered questions to this “true story” and a few hard to ignore inconsistencies that make it a bit too hard to swallow.
3) Texas Chain Saw Massacre
With a budget of only $140,000, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre grossed more than $26 Million US. I know it’s hard to do math, but if you need some help, that’s a net gain of about $26 Million. And that was 1974 $26 million without inflation. Using this handy online inflation calculator (or my brian that just has that information ‘cus of how come I’m so awesome), the total U.S. Gross of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre from 1974 adjust to today's dollars (well, 2010 dollars) is 116,144,098.96. Still not beating out Blair Which, darn near close.
Ok, so why do we care? Only the year before, in 1973, The Excorsist made cinema history with the amount of money they made on a horror movie “based on a true story.” So, the makers of Texas Chain Saw Massacre did they same thing and promoted the movie as being based on a true story. But...
Wikipedia says “false marking as a ‘true story’” but we can’t stop there. Plus Wikipedia lies sometimes.
In a snopes.com article, it is explained that the actual inspiration for the film is an incident involving a slow line in a hardware department and few chainsaws...in Tobe Hooper’s mind, (the writer and director).
"...I had been working on this other story for some months - about isolation, the woods, the darkness, and the unknown. It was around the holiday season, and I found myself in the Ward's hardware department, and I was still kind of percolating on this idea ..and those big crowds have always gotten to me. There were just so many people to go through. And I was just standing there in front of an upright display of chainsaws. And the focus just racked from my eyeball to the people to the saws - and the idea popped. I said, "ooh, I know how I could get out of this place fast - if I just start one of these things up and make that sound. " Of course I didn't. That was just fantasy."
Of course not. But that is pretty funny, scaring the shit out of people with a chainsaw in a crowded department store. I’m sure some one will make a movie about that, or already have. But ok, so, the writer/director came up with the idea in a long line in the holiday shopping season. So what, that still doesn’t mean there wasn’t some Texas chain saw mass killing, right?
PIctured: Gunner Hansen, the actor who played Leatherface...also kinda looks like Santa Clause.
Well, in this interview with the dude who played Leatherface, Gunnar Hansen, who will be in the new movie in 2012, and who also looks like Santa Claus, said this after being asked if it was based on a true story:
"Nope again. And double nope. Here's what Tobe (director) and Kim (writer) told me themselves one night during the filming. They had heard of Ed Gein, the man in Plainfield, Wisconsin, who was arrested in the late 1950s for killing his neighbor and on whom the movie Psycho was based. So when they set out to write this movie, they decided to have a family of killers who had some of the characteristics of Gein: the skin masks, the furniture made from bones, the possibility of cannibalism. But that's all. The story itself is entirely made up. So, sorry folks. There never was a massacre in Texas on which this was based. No chainsaw either. And, in spite of those of you who have told me you remember when it happened, it really didn't happen. Really. Believe me. This is an interesting phenomenon. I've also had people tell me that they knew the original Leatherface, that they had been guards at the state prison in Huntsville, Texas, where he was a prisoner. Maybe they knew somebody who dreamed of being Leatherface. It is, I suppose, something to aspire to. “
“Entirely made up”, but sorta based on Ed Gein, ‘cus well, who wouldn’t base a movie off Ed Gein. Worked for the movie Ed Gein. Let’s just have all the movies based on Ed Gein from now on. The next Batman should just have Ed Gein as the villain, or hell, as the hero. He’d kill the Joker, eat his face, and wear his skin. I’m sure that’d be a good movie.
Jaws was released in 1975 with a Speilberg budget of $12,000,000, it grossed $260,000,000 U.S. and millions of people were instantly afraid to swim in the ocean, lakes, rivers, pools or even take a shower. The movie was based on Peter Benchley’s novel of the same name, which was inspired by actual shark attacks off the Jersey Shore during the summer of 1916.
Here’s an original New York Times story about the attacks.
But was it really just one Great White shark?
“Two days after the fifth attack, an 8.5-foot (2.6-metre) shark was caught in Raritan Bay, some 4 miles (6.5 kilometres) away from the mouth of Matawan Creek. It was identified as a White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) by Dr. Frederick Lucas, who was director of the American Museum of Natural History at the time. Upon examining its stomach contents, Lucas found "the shinbone of a boy and what appeared to be part of a human rib". Since the animal's gut contained incriminating evidence and no subsequent attacks occurred, it was widely assumed that this individual was the shark responsible for the recent spate of attacks. No one seemed to be bothered that the three most recent attacks occurred 2.5 miles (4 kilometres) up tiny Matawan Creek, a very unusual habitat for a White Shark.”
So, maybe not. And on the same page, it refers to a book called “Book of Sharks”, which calls into question many of the reports and specifics. Like whether or not all the attacks were done by the same shark, or if the attacks far up fresh water rivers were done by a Great White even though it would be extremely odd for them, but a Bull Shark’s often venture far up rivers, one article referred to the attacks as being committed by “sharks”, like, plural, meaning, more than one. And the most damning of all: “Analysis of the wounds on the victims suggest that at least three, different-sized sharks were responsible for these attacks.” (read that article, it’s pretty dang good.)
This seems to be the case of the media sensationalizing something that unfortunately happens from time to time. Bull Shark’s often go far up rivers and sometimes munch on little boys swimming in their presumed safe swimming hole. But wouldn’t it be way more scary if a freekin’ huge Great White ate a whole bunch of people? Wouldn’t that be great! I mean, awful.
Warning, commence going off...
This story of a man eating shark...eating a lot of men perpetuates an unfair stereo type to the sharks that are a vital part to our ecosystem. Here’s an interesting fact, did you know that more people die every year by cows than sharks? It’s true, Cracked.com says so.
This kills us more often than sharks do.
Yes, sharks eat people from time to time, that’s a bummer. But that’s what they do, they eat stuff, and sometimes we are swimming where they eat. It’d be like if a wild range cow (if they still existed) walked into a cattle range and started hanging out with cows we planned to eat. Maybe the poor cow didn’t intend for us to eat it, but it was with the other cows that we were going to eat, how were we supposed to tell the difference?
And here’s the other thing, the author of the book, Peter Benchley, now regrets writing it because what has happened to the shark population since.
"I couldn't write 'Jaws' today… It used to be believed that great white sharks did target humans; now we know that, except in the rarest of instances, great white shark attacks are mistakes."
Cracked wrote about it in this article as well, in an article entitled "6 Hugely Popular Books that Accidentally Screwed the World."
5) Amityville Horror
NPR.org lists the book entitled “The Amityville Horror” that the movie was based on in the “fiction” genre. But perhaps those sea weed eating, liberally biased yahoos at NPR just don’t have an open mind about the supernatural. Perhaps there is some truth to this story after all.
An article at Prairieghosts.com recounts the murders that happens at the house called “High Hopes.” On November 1974, Ronald DeFeo murdered his entire family. Read up if you want to know all the details as to why, and what actually happened. But this is a true event, there was a trial, he was convicted, and was very crazy.
“As far as I'm concerned, if I didn't kill my family, they were going to kill me.... what I did was self-defense and there was nothing wrong with it. When I got a gun in my hand, there's no doubt in my mind who I am. I am God.”
But apparently not crazy enough to get off on an insanity defense.
“On Friday, November 21, 1975, Ronald DeFeo, Jr., was found guilty of six counts of second-degree murder. Two weeks later, he was sentenced to 25 years to life ... “
So, after a horrible multiple murder, why not buy the house? On December 18, 1975, George and Kathy Lutz bought the house and moved in along with their kids. Shortly after moving into “High Hopes” (aka. the murder house), weird shit started happening.
Troy Taylor, the author of the page on prairieghosts.com, lists the many weird things they claim to have experienced.
They include, but are not limited to:
- locked windows and doors opening and closing
- sounds of a brass marching band
- a voice saying "get out" when a priest attempted to perform an exorcism on the house
- to be fair, if you were a disembodied voice haunting a murder house, you would tell a priest to get out too.
- a devilish creature seen outside the windows at night
- the father’s personality changed and seemed to be "possessed"
- green slime oozed from walls and ceiling
- like that old Nickelodeon show?
- apparitions of hooded figures
- clouds of flies
- yeah, time to clean up the trash
- objects moving on their own
- repeated disconnection of their telephone service
- if this is an indication of a poltergeist, then I think my iPhone is haunted
- the youngest Lutz child apparently had an imaginary friend, who also happened to be a devil pig "Jodie"
- well who doesn’t have an imaginary devil pig friend named Jodie?
- Kathy reported she was attacked by unseen hands multiple times
So, instead of sticking around, they ran like hell and left the demon haunted, marching band invested, Nickelodeon Gak dispensing house, leaving all their furniture and most of their belongings...and hopefully the imaginary demon pig. (but as we all know, it’s hard to get an imagery demon pig to “stay.”)
So, then, of course, psychics got involved.
“They [psychics] later reported that they "sensed" an "unearthly presence" in the house ...The house was haunted, they said, by the angry spirits of Indians who had once inhabited the area and by "inhuman spirits". The story was that the Shinnecock Indians had used that very parcel of land as a place where sick and insane members of the tribe were isolated until they died. They did not bury the dead there however because they supposedly believed the land was "infested with demons".
But a Snopes.com article explains that the Shinnecock Indians probably didn’t do that.
"The 2005 remake promises to mine Anson's book more deeply than did the previous screenplays, including background about early Indians (whose vengeful spirits may lurk nearby) and devil-worshiping early settlers of the area. Yet, Moran explains, "Experts told me that the tribe mentioned was not from the Amityville area at all (acutally, they had inhabited the easter tip of Long Island, 70 miles away) and that the settlers mentioned were never local residents either."
So the Indian stories and the demon worshippers are bunk. What did the paranormal community think? A paranormal researcher, Dr. Stephen Kaplan, executive director of the Parapsychology Institute of America, had doubts about the story.
“[Dr. Stephen Kaplan] received a phone call from Lutz and wanted the society to investigate the house for supernatural activity. He asked about a fee for the group's services and Kaplan told him that they did not charge for the investigation but that "if the story is a hoax...the public will know". A few days later, Lutz called and cancelled the investigation. He claimed that he and his wife did not want any publicity about the house.”
But if they were concerned about publicity, why the live séance ?
“In February 1976, not long after the Lutz family left the house, local residents were stunned to see New York Channel 5's news team doing a live news feed from the house on Ocean Avenue. The news crew filmed a séance and a dramatic "investigation" of the place conducted by Ed and Lorraine Warren, two of America' most famous "demonologists".”
And then there’s the priest’s involvement.
“...[in the book the character] Father Mancuso is terrorized by a demon while trying to bless the new home. He is then stalked by the specter back to the rectory, where he is afflicted with boils, bleeding palms, a fever, and the smell of excrement. In real life, a priest did bless the house, and did have some concern about the possibility of a haunting. Both the real priest and rectory were unharmed by any such demon though.”
Ok, so, a priest did go to the house and prayed, but nothing really happened. What about all the crap the husband/father did?
"However, Lutz says he never killed his beloved Labrador retriever, nor did he chase after his wife and children with an ax, as his namesake character does in the film."
Lutz claimed he suffered "loss of reputation, shame, mortification and hurt feelings" from the movie's depiction of him as "a homicidal maniac." If you didn’t catch where that link is, it’s from Courttv.com. Yep, The Lutz’s sueing, claiming “defamation and breach of contract.”
“But a judge sided with the defendants, saying that the film was a work of fiction protected under the First Amendment, and that it fell within California's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute designed to protect free speech.”
"The remake of 'The Amityville Horror' is an activity of widespread public interest," Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu wrote in his order filed on Oct. 31. "It is a movie viewed by millions of fans and generating millions of dollars for the defendants who participated in writing the screenplay, producing the movie, and distributing the 2005 remake."
Huh, so, there’s your motive for making up some bullshit story about a haunted house. But so where’s the smoking gun?
“The truth behind The Amityville Horror was finally revealed when Butch Defeo's lawyer, William Weber, admitted that he, along with the Lutzes, "created this horror story over many bottles of wine."
Ah, there it is. ‘Cus what’s more fun than taking advantage of six homicides and making up a story about how the house they lived in was haunted over wine? Great job guys, outstanding work.
6) Hills have Eyes
The original The Hills Have Eyes movie came out in 1977, directed by Wes Craven, and according to Wikipeida,
“The film did reasonably well in its initial release and today enjoys a large cult following.”
At Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 64%, but don’t think this is a fun horror flick for the family. It includes setting someone on fire while still alive, baby stealing, brutal killings, and rape. It is considered by some one of Wes Craven’s better movies and is on a few “best of” lists.
Although the movie was never touted as based on a true story, it does get its themes from a supposedly true story from the 15th or 16th century, Scotland.
Sean Thomas, writing for forteantimes.com, recounts the story of Sawney Bean and his family, and it has the makings of excellent genre flick in and of itself.
After attacking travelers, stealing their stuff they killed them, ate them and then pickling their body parts for later. The stockpile of human flesh apparently became so numerous that the family would often simply throw parts into sea, which would in turn wash up on shore in other areas of the country, scaring the crap out of everyone.
Of course with so many people being killed and eaten (some stories say over a thousand), it was just a matter of time before someone eventually stopped them. Thomas recounts one incident where a man and his wife coming home from a fair were attacked by the family, the woman’s neck cut and the attacker immediately drinking her blood. The man fended them off with his sword and gun and eventually more people from the fair witnessed the attack and scared them off.
PIctured: Cave local legend says where Sawney Bean and his family lived, courtesy of forteantimes.com
After a long search, they finally found their cave hide out. So the king sent his soldiers to round up the family, but, of course, they were freaked the fuck out when went in, finding:
“human legs, arms, hands and feet were hung up in rows, like dried beef. A great many limbs, of men, women and children, lay in pickle, and a great mass of money, both gold and silver, and an infinite number of other things, which had been taken from those murdered, were also thrown together in heaps”
The soldiers cornered the family in the cave, captured and brought them back to have executed.
Commence just punishment for evil people:
"When the procession came to its journey's end, … they were all executed without any process. The men had their privy-members cut off and thrown into the fire; their hands and legs were severed from their bodies, by which amputations they bled to death in some hours. The wife, daughters and grandchildren, having been made spectators of this just punishment, were afterwards burnt to death in three several fires. They all in general died without the least signs of repentance, but continued, to the very last gasp of life cursing and venting the most dreadful imprecations upon all around, and upon all those who were instrumental in bringing them to such well merited punishments."
Hm...I’m not sure exactly what a “privy member” is, but yeah I am, and also was that necessary? Also, is any of it true? Sean Thomas responds to the accuracy of the story thusly:
“..it is arguable that the Bean story may have a basis of truth but the precise dating of events has become obscured over the years. Perhaps the dating of the murders was brought forward by the editors and writer of the broadsheets, so as to make the story appear more relevant to the readership (any Fleet Street journalist, like this writer, knows the process well). To add to the intrigue, we do know that cannibalism was not unknown in mediæval Scotland, and that Galloway was in mediæval times a very lawless place; perhaps nothing on the scale of the Bean legend took place, but every story grows and is embroidered over time.”
An article at BBC.co.uk also discusses the validity of this story.
“The story of Alexander Bean and his fiendish family is one that generates real passion and debate: while some believe it to be legitimate history, inconsistencies in the story and the lack of documented evidence of Bean’s existence or even his trial and execution means that most historians are in agreement that it is more likely to be a tale.”
So, here’s a question. If the whole thing was made up, why did it become so damned popular and repeatedly passed on as a true story? Sean Thomas finishes his thoughts about the Sawney Bean legend and speaks to our sick minds:
“...the story somehow satisfies a deep psychological hunger for such horrors. In this view, humans share a dark and morbid obsession with murder, cannibalism and sexualised torture, and therefore we keep on coming up with similar horror stories based on these themes – the ones that frighten and intrigue us the most. The Sawney Bean story is therefore, perhaps, just another inevitable and typical excrescence of our own diseased minds, a kind of psychospiritual acne expressed in the form of legend.”
Well, fuck it, I think he’s right. Take a look at the movies Saw, Hostel, Frontiers, Human Centipede, Wolf Greek, Devils’ Rejects, Hellraiser, among others. They’re all doing the thing “holy shit, look at this awful stuff over here, this guy gets totally tortured and killed and then eaten, and that chick gets raped and those people are made to eat each others shit, it’s totally sick...lets watch it!”
We’ve been doing it for a long time, The Sawney Bean story was first printed hundreds of years ago and it wasn’t the first story like it, and it won’t be the last.
7) Open Water
What’s more terrifying, being terrorised and eaten by an entire family of vendetta man eating great whites with the magically ability of knowing where the descendants of the people who killed their ancestors (ya know, the Jaws series)...or, ya know, being left in the open ocean and eventually drowning. I’m gonna go with that first one...but, ya know, drowning in in the open ocean is pretty scary, I guess.
But is it based on a true story? Well, the movie says so, so...no, no it isn’t.
“The promotional material boasts that the film is "based on true events", but its makers are now parrying questions about exactly which true events are involved. Yet few doubt that the inspiration is the case of Tom and Eileen Lonergan, American tourists who disappeared off Australia's Great Barrier Reef on January 25, 1998.”
Ok, so, it’s based on an actual couple. Go on.
“They certainly appear to have survived the night: several months later a fisherman 100 miles north of the site found a dive slate which records their thoughts as dawn broke that morning. … "[Mo]nday Jan 26; 1998 08am. To anyone [who] can help us: We have been abandoned on A[gin]court Reef by MV Outer Edge 25 Jan 98 3pm. Please help us [come] to rescue us before we die. Help!!!"
Suck, ok. Not good for a Outer Edge, please continue...
“Inflatable dive jackets marked with Tom and Eileen's names were later washed ashore north of Port Douglas, along with their tanks - still buoyed up by a few remnants of air - and one of Eileen's fins. None showed any signs of the damage you would expect from a violent end, suggesting that the couple were not the victim of a shark attack, as the film suggests. Experts at the inquest speculated that, drifting helplessly back and forth on the tides in the building heat of the tropical sun, the couple may have been driven delirious by dehydration and have voluntarily struggled out of their cumbersome outfits. Without the buoyancy provided by their dive jackets and wetsuits, they would not have been able to tread water for long. “
Huh. So...the only thing we really know about these poor people is that they wrote a plea for help and at some point got naked, most likely ‘cus they went crazy, then drowned. And then someone made a movie out of that. It’s sort of like how Snakes on a Plane got made:
“Let’s make a movie.” Dude 1
“What about?” Dude 2
“Ok, what else?” Dude 2
“Uh, planes.” Dude1
“Huh. I think ya got something there.” Dude 2
blog comments powered by Disqus
Only, you know, about two actual people who actually died with real families who probably didn’t like the fact that their son and daughter’s deaths were used to make money. It’s as if there is an entire industry built to use people for their own gain, as if there are at least a few soulless people write about the misfortunes and deaths of people and then make some sort of monetary or gain.
I think I’m just gonna stick to the happy movies, like... It Happened One Night directed by Frank Capra, with Clark Cable, the first romantic comedy, and received four Oscars, and no one eats anyone in it.