Reviews
[REVIEW] Is ‘Fatal Attraction’ (1987) A Horror Film?
Fatal Attraction follows New York attorney Dan Gallagher (Michael Douglas) who meets editor Alex Forrest (Glenn Close) at a book release party. When Dan’s wife Beth (Anne Archer) and young daughter Ellen (Ellen Hamilton Latzen) go out to the country for a weekend with Beth’s parents, Dan has a life-changing affair with Alex. Once Dan makes it clear that he doesn’t wish to continue their affair in secret, Alex attempts to end her life. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Learning that Alex is pregnant (possibly) with Dan’s child, he fast-tracks his family’s exit from the city to a sprawling, isolated house in the woods. But if he thought moving would solve all his problems…he was dead wrong.
Not to be that guy but Merriam-Webster defines horror as, “painful and intense fear, dread, or dismay.” Defining something as horror is more than just checking a few boxes of descriptor words. What it really comes down to is the subjective experience of the viewer. Fatal Attraction is one of those films I’ve heard endlessly mentioned throughout the years, but I had never given it the time of day. So, after finally watching it, I’m left with the question: is it horror?
Yes. But not a good one.
What is Fatal Attraction About?
Fatal Attraction follows New York attorney Dan Gallagher (Michael Douglas) who meets editor Alex Forrest (Glenn Close) at a book release party. When Dan’s wife Beth (Anne Archer) and young daughter Ellen (Ellen Hamilton Latzen) go out to the country for a weekend with Beth’s parents, Dan has a life-changing affair with Alex. Once Dan makes it clear that he doesn’t wish to continue their affair in secret, Alex attempts to end her life. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Learning that Alex is pregnant (possibly) with Dan’s child, he fast-tracks his family’s exit from the city to a sprawling, isolated house in the woods. But if he thought moving would solve all his problems…he was dead wrong.
Why Fatal Attraction Fails as a Horror Film
Where do we start with discussing Fatal Attraction? I’ll start by quelling your, and curator of all things Horror Press James-Michael, minds by saying when I refer to Fatal Attraction as not being a “good one” I don’t mean it’s a bad film. It’s not great by any means but it’s not terrible. Fatal Attraction has the trappings of a great horror film but fails to follow through with elements that would make it an excellent horror film. Part of this has to do with the scrapped ending.
Who Is the Real Victim in Fatal Attraction?
The “good guy” in Fatal Attraction isn’t Dan or Alex, it’s Beth and Ellen. Dan and Alex are inherently both bad people. Where Dan is just morally corrupt, Alex has mental health issues that drive her to commit reprehensible acts. Beth and Ellen (and the rabbit) are the innocents stuck in the crossfire of Dan and Alex. By the time the credits rolled and Dan shook the Luitenant’s hand (Michael Arkin), I didn’t feel anything for him. I felt terrible that Ellen had to be put through this and watch her parents argue (and get kidnapped). I felt bad that Beth was unnecessarily forced to have a car accident and then kill Alex.
Character Development and Missed Emotional Impact
Now, if the film’s purpose was to feel bad for Beth and Ellen, I would have a different outlook. But writer James Dearden and director Adrian Lyne (based on Dearden’s short film Diversion ((which was based on Clint Eastwood’s Play Misty for Me))) fail to do anything with their script and direction, respectively, to make you feel for them. Beth and Ellen are constantly relegated to the background and only used when Dan needs to be hurt somehow.
The Scrapped Ending and Gender Politics of the Era
The scrapped ending for this film has Alex slitting her throat and framing Dan for her murder. While this would have been a better all-around ending, it still paints Alex as the crazy woman who solely has it out to hurt men. Which, for a film in the ‘80s, isn’t too much of a stretch. Films like this and 1977’s Death Game (the film that Eli Roth remade Knock Knock from) are quick to point the finger at women. Death Game even ends with Agatha (Sondra Locke) and Donna (Colleen Camp) getting run over by a van–their just desserts. I can only imagine the rounds of applause that moment got in ’70s cinemas. To make a long story short, Dan is not the victim in Fatal Attraction. And it’s completely disingenuous for this film to paint him as such.
One of the highlights of Fatal Attraction is the acting. While we may not see any of Michael Douglas’ famed cancer-causing-cunnilingus, he does a stellar job as Dan (the way he is written). Glenn Close, brings a level of charisma to her character that could lead to an “alpha” man falling for her. But maybe the biggest plothole of the film is WHO THE HELL WOULD EVER CHEAT ON Anne Archer?!
Alternate Casting Choices That Could Have Changed Everything
The casting for Fatal Attraction works for what this film is, but it’s important to look at what could have been. Almost 100 actresses were looked at for Alex with people including Rosanna Arquette, Jessica Lange, Demi Moore, Sharon Stone, Mia Farrow, Beverly D’Angelo, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Olivia Newton-John, Heather Locklear, and Isabelle Adjani. ISABELLE ADJANI. Come on! Conversely, some of the men looked at to play Dan were less interesting and attractive like Dan Aykroyd, John Voight, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rick Moranis, Jim Belushi, Sylvester Stallone, and O.J. Simpson. That would have been hysterical[ly bad].
Fatal Attraction is a competently directed film for the story it’s trying to tell but fails to be anything more than thinly veiled semi-erotic fodder. Some solid performances are bogged down by a one-note story that’s afraid to push itself to the far reaches of human emotion. The first half is fun and exciting but slows down in the back half, which kills the pacing. I wish they would have stuck with the original ending and not curtailed itself to idiotic test audiences. It’s fine for what it is, but it could have been so much more with a better casting director.
Reviews
Madame Morbid Trolley Tour Review: Is It Worth It?
Most people find that stretching their dollar still barely gets them by in today’s economy. I am very particular about what I spend my spare money on regarding extracurriculars. And no one likes to feel like their money is wasted. Madame Morbid Trolley Tours wasn’t an experience I had been familiar with. Maybe that’s because I’m chronically offline for most of my life. So this leads to the perfect question: in today’s turbulent economy, is Madame Morbid Trolley Tours worth the price? The short answer is unquestionably, yes. But it’s more than just a simple yes.
My wife and I arrived at the designated meeting point 15 minutes before the scheduled departure time. A handful of minutes later, a gorgeous, e-candle-lit trolley pulled up to the side of the road. We were greeted by impeccably on-brand Allison Chase, our tour guide, and trolley driver ‘Mad’ Matt Zaller. The wonderfully cheery duo invited us on the trolley, and the tour was set to begin.
400 Years of Death, Destruction, and Infrastructure
After a welcoming video intro from someone who knows a thing or two about busting ghosts, we set off on the inaugural Madame Morbid Trolley Tour in its ninth year of operation. From the Brooklyn Naval Yard all the way to Dumbo, and more, this tour magnificently chronicles 400 years of history, the good and the bad, expertly. No matter how much you think you may know about Brooklyn history, I can bet there will be something new learned within the first 15 minutes of the tour. From the first-ever plane crash to one of the worst theater fires in history, this tour covers tragedies that the greatest horror writers couldn’t conceive.
The Deadly [Charming] Docent
Allison Chase led the fascinating tour in character from the moment we stepped on the trolley until our departure. But Allison’s character was not forced or fake; you could feel Allison’s passion for not just morbid history, but the accuracy of it. Some of the stories we heard were steeped in historical context, and it was not boring for a single second. The Madame Morbid Trolley Tour is not your standard full-talking tour. It’s a mixed-media adventure of some of Brooklyn’s darkest moments.
During “downtime” (the times between locations), we were edutained by mini documentaries (that were quite funny). Some of the “downtime” was filled with traffic trivia (I won a needle pen!). And other times were show-and-tell-like, with objects passed around for us to examine. But there was never a moment of silence that wasn’t purposeful. All in all, Allison’s knowledge and passion shone like the luminosity of a full moon.
Is Madame Morbid Trolley Tours Worth It?
The Madame Morbid Trolley Tour was not just a fun night out for my wife and me, but it was a delightfully dark night of edutainment. It should also be noted that ‘Mad’ Matt’s driving skills were fantastic. There was a time when I had become enamored with how Matt handled the narrow streets of Brooklyn before realizing that I needed to refocus my attention on Allison. The Madame Morbid Trolley Tour is an exceptionally fun evening of horror and history that will make you think twice next time you walk down the streets of Brooklyn. It is worth the money, and then some. There’s no better activity for a cold, dark October night than the Madame Morbid Trolley Tour.
For more information on Madame Morbid Trolley Tours, and to get your tickets, click here!
Reviews
‘Cujo’ (1983): A First-Time-Watch Review
I don’t know what’s wrong with me. I should have watched the Stephen King adaptation Cujo a million years ago. First of all, I was a voracious King reader in middle school. The other thing I was obsessed with during those years was Friends. You know, the show that hinges a major episode’s subplot on Rachel (Jennifer Aniston) watching Cujo for the first time. Whatever the reason was, I never got around to it, but I’m rectifying that oversight now.
What is Cujo About?
Cujo tells a relatively simple story. Donna Trenton’s (Dee Wallace) a housewife who’s cheating on her husband Vic (Daniel Hugh-Kelly) with local handyman Steve (Christopher Stone). There’s no accounting for taste, because Vic is 10 times hotter and Steve doesn’t own a bed frame. Look, Donna. I know Vic has that awful David Hasselhoff hair, but I promise the 1980s will end sooner or later. It’ll be OK.
Donna’s attempted termination of this affair ultimately leads to its discovery. Amid this drama, her car breaks down at a mechanic’s isolated farmhouse, trapping her and her son, Tad (Danny Pintauro). You see, the mechanic’s dog, Cujo, freshly christened with rabies, is patrolling the area and attacking everything in sight.
Dee Wallace Is Cujo’s Not-So-Secret Weapon
It would be impossible to start a worthwhile review of Cujo without praising Dee Wallace. The woman is a genre icon, naturally. Think about this: She had only appeared in seven theatrical movies before starring in Cujo. Four of those movies are The Stepford Wives, The Hills Have Eyes, E.T., and The Howling. But this woman didn’t become an icon simply by accidentally stumbling into some iconic titles. She is simply terrific as Donna, using her darting eyes and taut expression to deliver oodles of subtext. You instantly get the sense of how trapped she feels by marriage and motherhood without her uttering a single word.
A good performance is vital, here. Because there’s a hell of a lot of drama to get through before she’s trapped in that damn car. But Wallace instantly shoves you into Donna’s perspective, whether you like it or not. This makes it all the more potent when she is menaced by Cujo. Her desperate attempts for survival, also impeccably performed, have true weight because she seems like a real person. She is also given an incredible scene partner in Danny Pintauro. The future Who’s the Boss? star, who was only six when shooting Cujo, has a perfect everychild quality. His innocence heightens the peril. But so does that fact that he is just as irritating as every six-year-old you’ve ever met.
This movie truly captures how annoying it must be to be stuck in a life-and-death situation with a child. This is a compliment, I swear! Donna is worn down by every aspect of the situation, including her own son’s inability to cope with it. And this ratchets up the tension even further, to an almost unbearable degree.
Cujo Is a Mixed Bag, But Worthwhile Overall
The movie doesn’t work if Cujo himself doesn’t work, and at first I was real worried that he wouldn’t. In the first half, the St. Bernards that play Cujo onscreen are often shown to be wagging their tails in delight. Which kind of undercuts the reality of the situation, I’d say. But the editing and the special effects step in to fix what animal training couldn’t. The attack scenes in the second half are constructed with quick cuts that never let you get too much purchase. It’s a good approach for keeping viewers off-kilter.
Also, Cujo becomes less and less recognizable as a cuddly canine the further the movie gets. It’s a simple trick, really. He ends up getting coated with more and more slime. Saliva, pus, blood, and what have you. This is good for making him feel like a true movie monster. Plus, it’s a good mirror for the sliminess inside the car as it gets covered in sweat, blood, and grime.
The second half of the movie ultimately works like gangbusters. It’s a shame that Cujo is too cowardly to get Donna and Tad in the car before the halfway point. This decision is somewhat faithful to the book’s structure as I remember it. However, it diminishes the weight of the long days that they spend in the car. We really need to feel that crushing stretch of time, and we don’t. When Tad is suffering from dehydration, it’s not a gut punch. Honestly, I just found myself asking, “Already?” It’s good that they gave the movie a happier ending, because the classic grimdark Stephen King finale wouldn’t have landed.
Is Cujo Worth Watching in 2026?
At the end of the day, Cujo is a solid movie and I’m glad I finally watched it. However, it’s not such a stone-cold classic that I’m not at least a little intrigued by that upcoming Netflix remake…



