OCTOBER HORROR CHALLENGE: The Final Chapter ... (aka Demons 3)

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > OCTOBER HORROR CHALLENGE: The Final Chapter ... (aka Demons 3)

SomeJazzyRat: Nov 2, 2012; Hmmm...

How do we feel about doing horror TV for the challenge? Personally, I figure a group of episodes could count if the combined run time (no commercials) is over 80 minutes.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2018 20:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 10:14

SomeJazzyRat: Nov 2, 2012; Hmmm...

Tonight the local haunted house opened up, and coming out of it I was high on spook-a-doodle. So after two years of accomplishing the challenge, I want to make this my third year doing so. No real goal, other than clear out my shelf of unwatched horror films, check out Shudder for the first time, and catch anything that fancies me. My only goal is to make better/more concise write ups rather than my multi-paragraph ramblings.

And considering that I'm late to a couple of Fran's Challenges, figure I should hurry on and catch up.

:skeltal:

The List :skeltal:

1. Welcome to Willits (Fran Challenge 1: Love Something You Hate)

So, the common adage is that is that a bad Drama can be hilarious, but a bad Comedy is dire. And horror is a genre full of well meaning filmmakers who don't know what they're doing. Point being, horror comedy is a very dicey proposition. Add on to that the very shaky track record of stoner comedies, and you have a neigh uphill battle. Anyways, Netflix had two candidates, and this one was the sub 1 hr 30 min option.

Anyways, this is a movie of two stories. One is about a meth cooking, weed growing couple. Husband claims to have been abducted by animals, wife believes him, niece doesn't. The second is about a group of young people going into the woods to vacation, despite stories of abductions. I'll get to the point, I don't like this film at all. And I'm going to spoil it because I don't think it's worth watching. There aren't any aliens. The husband and wife are wacked out of his brains, and start thinking these kids are aliens. It's clear that the filmmaker was so interested in a plot about a delusional person, thinking he's in a horror movie, unknowingly causing a slasher among these kids. And they were so infatuated with that story that they neglected to make the latter half of their movie any good, not that the former half is any great. It's mix of witty dialog, silly stoner shenanigans, and scenes of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia style idiots fumbling just don't land at all. Partly is because the movie's atmosphere is so dire early on that it's tension just overrides a scene's intention. Nor is it scary in its attempts to disturb the audience with the violent actions of a man suffering from psychosis (but Hannibal it is not). It's a film of too many ideas, and as a result it is clever by half. Maybe if the filmmakers had paired down it's premise to it's bare essentials, and thoroughly explored them, it might have been fine. But as is, it's a number of familiar elements remixed in an uninteresting and inartistic way.

Also, it features an extended cameo by Dolph Lundgren as a cop in a show-within-a-movie, which was a really bizarre and needless choice.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2018 08:05

SomeJazzyRat: Nov 2, 2012; Hmmm...

The List :skeltal:

1. Welcome to Willits (Fran Challenge 1: Love Something You Hate)
2. Multiple Maniacs (Fran Challenge 2: Queer Horror)

So, John Waters. Despite what Werner Herzog believed for decades, he is incredibly gay. And being incredibly gay at a very interesting (read: dangerous) time, that reflects a specific PoV. I couldn't even understand what it was like to exist within a society that regressed and progressed in incredible fashion, all within his lifetime. And perhaps because of that, it makes this film, which was created at the start of his career, such an odd and alienating artifact.

It should be evident that what Politically Correct meant decades ago is very different from what it means now. Back when this film was made, to rebel against it was to try to force the status quo to acknowledge what it was inherently ignoring. And this film opens up with that statement on its sleeve, barker on stand beckoning to the normies. Come see the geek show. Watch freaks and weirdos do the sick and inexplicable. Witness the subjugated perform for your amusement, from the safety of your higher morals. But once Divine hits the stage, the divide crumbles. Audiences are strapped into a queer coated joyride, forced to watch the 'fags' and 'dykes' get their kicks at their suffering, both within the film and metatextuality. It takes the exploitation model and flips it on it's head, instead exploiting it's audience for the filmmaker's enjoyment.

Admittedly, it's an amature and mediocre film. In a certain way, it works best purely as an artifact of semi-contemporary outsider art. But it has something that a lot of bad movies don't have. A certain level of glee and understanding of it's content. It's John Waters, a champion of trash, understanding that he is making a trash movie. It's garbage, and with that he and his friends are going wild. Ostensibly, between the murder and bad people doing bad things, this is a kind of horror movie. But in practice, between the odd comedy, weird story detours, and the almost pornographic sex/recreation of the Stations of the Cross scene, you will be too puzzled and entertained to be 'Shocked' and 'Terrified'. There's probably too many oddball ideas in this kinda overstuffed movie, but it doesn't matter. This is a disposable film, meant for the exploitation circuit. You film it, cash out, forget about it and move on to the next feature. And because of that distinct, devil may care, balls to the wall attitude, they accidentally made an immortal film. Something a bit more intelligent than Outsider Art, a bit too gross for High Art. It's something so specific to it's time, to the people that made it, that it should never be forgotten.

# ¿ Oct 1, 2018 10:38

SomeJazzyRat: Nov 2, 2012; Hmmm...

The List :skeltal:

The legacy of Univeral's 1925 feature of Phantom of the Opera is long and storied. Lon Chaney, his infamous makeup, the famed opera house set, the showstopping Chandelier scene, etc. It was a film with high aspirations, featuring a large cast and thousands of extras, as well as a lavish opera house that was built to withstand them (and as a result was built to last till 2014). To be a film that could recoup it's cost, it had to be a film for everyone featuring a bit of everything. Romance, drama, comedy, thrills, etc. Within the context of nearly 100 years of film history, you could almost view this as a kind of naive art. Both an artifact and evidence of an artform still refining. It's possible that this is a result of a somewhat troubled production, having been a combination of three independent film shoots that somehow had to be edited into one feature. And perhaps like most films of it's time, it would have been forgotten if not for two things. One, it's production design. It's lavish, grand, sophisticated, and artistically grungy. A clear inspiration not only for the future Universal Monster films, not to mention Hammer and other gothic features, but also for expensive Hollywood epics like Gone With The Wind. The second factor was Lon Chaney. He is magnetic and theatrical, demanding attention with only his hands and expression alone. Add to that his impeccable makeup effects, giving his phantom a quality that's still unnerving (even if it doesn't cause shrieks and fainting in the Frail and Womanly).

But to sidetrack, in the general horror thread there's been on and off conversation about film commentaries. A great way to learn new information about beloved films, to contextualize the nature of your favorite scenes, actors, and filmmakers. But have you considered the benefits of hearing one of the greatest and most wealthy writers of Musicals, Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber, talking over a version of Phantom of the Opera, despite the fact that he did not write it, that he knows nothing about it, and had never seen it before or since?

But yes, this version was one in which professional funny person Paul F. Tompkins recorded live performing as his Comedy Bang Bang character Andrew Lloyd Webber throughout the entire duration. It mainly consists of him pointing out the idiosyncrasies of pre-golden age filmmaking, and kinda backhandedly and egomaniacally insulting the filmmakers for not holding up to the standards of contemporary filmmaking. It was an incredibly silly experiment, that was neither requested nor necessary. Certainly there's some bits that don't land, but there's definitely plenty that do. And the end result is certainly welcome as a bit of free entertainment available on the internet, and for me personally, made it a bit more watchable by keeping me engrossed throughout the entire film.

If you would like to watch it, you can right here (warning, some real awful animation preceeds the actual movie): http://paulftompkins.com/post/178657191289/paul-f-tompkinss-andrew-lloyd-webbers-the

4. Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II (Fran Challenge: Hometown Horror)

This one was shot in the town I was born it, in a school that I never went to, but ba gawd you gotta have pride in your home town. And up here, we have Ginger Snap sequels and Prom Night 2. The story of a prom queen accidentally burnt alive the night of her Prom, and back decades later to win again and take revenge.

Anyways, this is defined by being an 80's horror movie. If you took all of Blockbuster's new horror releases circa 1980-1991, put it into a computer and averaged them out, this is likely what you would get. It's a film built out of the parts of other more popular movies: the 1950's throwback of Back to the Future, the surrealness of Nightmare on Elm Street, the telekinetics and setting of Carrie, some of Poltergeist and The Exorcist supernatural shenanigans, plus a small dash of Friday the 13th's bloodlust. The reputation that precedes this film is that it has nothing to do with the original Prom Night. It was an unrelated script, given minor retooling so they could leech off of an already successful feature. Either way, if you look at wikipedia and IMDB, you can get a sense that the screenwriter takes some pride in his script. Not that I will say that it's unwarranted, nor that he shouldn't do so. This film is a kind of just unenthusiastically pleasant-ish. It's a fine first half, seeming like it's trying reach beyond its grasp and say something about burgeoning female sexuality, and the expectation for teen girls to perform while also not be sluts. But then there's the second half that seems to be about cheap titillation and horror, undermining the first. It's just a solid undemanding lazy sunday watch. Not part of the horror cannon, but a solid part of the cult hits library.

As well, I was surprised to see Sam Fisher as one of the starring roles playing the Jerkass Principal.

# ¿ Oct 3, 2018 10:35

SomeJazzyRat: Nov 2, 2012; Hmmm...

The List :skeltal:

So, some people on these forums will swear that Zach Snyder is Legit Good�. I am not in that camp. However, I have been hearing for almost 15 years now that his Dawn of the Dead remake was Legit Good�, so this was a good opportunity to get on that.

So yeah, as a collaborative medium, this film has two major names attached to it. Both Snyder as director, and screenwriter James Gunn, who wrote this right between the first live action Scooby Doo film and it's sequel. And as a film, it's fine. I can't really have any serious objections to the way it was shot, it's plot, the characters, etc. All the parts of this film was built to a specific design to fit a specific tone and specific emotion, and executes it nearly flawlessly. It does some pretty great work establishing the speed and believability to it's outbreak, and giving it's characters small lines and moments to reflect the enormity of the disaster and massacre in its wake. But there's this nagging thing in the back of my brain that kept me from fully enjoying it, and it's this film's attitude.

To be clear, this is a very post-9/11 film. It has this vague message about the Bush administration, his authority, and the mindless, reality TV show watching Sheeple who put him in power. It's a kind of mixed metaphor, and I think it's because the people behind the camera don't really know what it is they're railing against. Certainly they understand Bush is bad, or that uneducated people voted for him because of his friendly, 'I'd have a beer that guy', take charge attitude. But it has neither sympathy nor understanding of how or why he got into power, be it economic disparity or the broken education system or white entitlement or corporate interests or hundreds of other factors. Instead the film just rages at the state of the status quo impotently, slinging centerist 'everything is bad' venom every which way. It's a kind of holier-than-thou, South Park style iconoclastism that is undeserved considering how much more broken things get 15 years later. And that attitude pervades even a lot of the film, showing on screen and swiftly killing a zombified fetus because 'the normies say we can't do that, it's crossing the line, nya nya'. It's edgy teenage Blink-182 poo poo from a generation who don't know how good they have it.

But otherwise, the film is decent bit of filmmaking. It carries a decent amount of tension and unpredictability, and a surprising mean streak for a major horror film. Plus, the dad from Modern Family is in this and calling people homophobic slurs. That's really weird.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2018 11:31

SomeJazzyRat: Nov 2, 2012; Hmmm...

The List :skeltal:

Rarely is there a movie that seems built specifically for you. A type of film which can make you crack up, gleam with realization, and capture you in ways you don't even understand. A film that you would be afraid to share with someone, because you would fear they would just not get it. Films like those are amazing discoveries that come around maybe once every couple of years.

I liked Creep a lot. But I loved Creep 2. It is loving hilarious and loving unnerving at the same time. It's so weirdly twisted and conceited, you can never exactly know if and when any of the characters are honest in their revelations or are lying about everything. Later on the film, not that it's a joke, but I bust a gut realizing that the film was actually a romantic comedy.

I cannot overemphasize how much I loved this film. And I watched it in unideal conditions: On a bus/while walking, in the midday sun, split over two parts. And despite all that, I was trying my damnedest to not blurt out laughing or flipping out in the middle of midday traffic sitting next to strangers. Hell, I let the whole credits play because I wanted to absorb it all 'it' being Sara Loves Her Juicy Fruit. Hilarious.

7. I am the Pretty Thing That Lives In The House

To be honest, I'm probably not capable of giving this film a fair review. I watched this during Scream Stream, joining about 15 minutes into the film, and I missed a lot of dialog due to the fact that my laptop speakers are poo poo and because I watched it in a noisy environment. This is a film light on content, and the slowest of slow burns. A work that demands your full attention, to lose your own Self in its atmosphere and carried by it's tension. But if you're watching the Scream Stream, you'll want the discord chat opened. The chat and live reactions are great and entertaining when things just keep happening. So you have this slow, demanding piece of art, and your attention is being divided by this little box of people impatiently waiting for things to happen. And once someone makes a good barb, you have an entire peanut gallery tearing into it, myself included. It was perhaps the absolute worst way to watch this film.

That said, I can't say I hated it. For what the film set out to achieve, I think objectively it executed it admirably in both craft and ambition. It's story, setting, characters, everything in this film is incredibly light and lean, and part of that is by design. It's a gothic short story, given wide berth to explore and develop it's tone. The events and what it means for the characters is almost secondary to the emotions and feelings that are actively happening. It's not really scary and nor is it really trying to be that scary. It's much more preoccupied with the Gothic aspect of Gothic Horror. I'm not a fan of it's ambiguity, but I'd say that's more due to my taste. Likely it was because I was starting to lose interest due to the conditions I saw it in. It's fine, I hope that other people will have more positive experiences watching it themselves. I just can't muster much in the way of enthusiasm.

# ¿ Oct 8, 2018 09:59

SomeJazzyRat: Nov 2, 2012; Hmmm...

The List :skeltal:

I remember catching parts of this on TV like 8 years ago, and kinda been meaning to go back and finish it up. I've always had an odd love affair with the game series, despite not having the nerve to actually play them. I own the soundtrack to the first game on vinyl, but the most that I've actually played of the series was 2 hours of the first game. And in that 2 hours, I went from beginning the game to getting to the house with the doghouse outside (which this speedrun managed to do in 6 minutes without any huge skips). Scary games just get to me in such a way that I just can't find them fun.

But anyways, this is a soft- I Didn't Like It. There's stuff in this movie that's admirably ambitious, especially considering the wasteland that was 2000's horror. But there's a death by a thousand cuts happening here. The biggest and most severe flaw is right at the core of the film, it's kinda terrible script. Obviously the dialog can be atrociously unnatural, but more I would say is that the film's molds it's structure off of Video Game's format. The story is pretty much a globetrotting adventure, despite being set in a small town, going from setting to setting based on the flimsiest clues (that are always correct), and somehow taking the oddest detour into expensive-yet-thematically-meaningless set pieces. It even has lengthy exposition sequences where the audience is forced to listen to characters narrate too much backstory. It has a lot of plot going on, but it's a story with nothing to say. It's all creep and shock, no substance.

You also have a terrible leading child actor, who is too creepy to be cute and too cute to be creepy. And the film forces her to carry the film on her shoulders at several moments, including the lengthiest of exposition scenes. Then there's smaller things, like the unnecessary subplot with Sean Bean, the overreliance on undercooked CG, the flat side characters who more recite archetypes than actually act, etc.

That said, the film has a few things going for it. It's a film that is playing around with both it's visuals and with it's audio mixing more than you would expect from a low-mid budget horror film. You get some real neat looking shots (which apparently some are lifted straight up from the games), and interesting layering/subtraction in the audio (like a high pitched whine when the flashlights point towards the camera). And then there's the visual style and the music, both of which were lifted straight out of the games (literally in the later case). In a sense it almost works better as a virtual haunted house experience than as a true Silent Hill story.

But yeah, still not a 100% enjoyable experience, but it's one I'm glad to have gotten out of my system.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2018 10:21

SomeJazzyRat: Nov 2, 2012; Hmmm...

The List :skeltal:

So this is a real odd duck. It's a low budget, disposable film meant for the grindhouse circuit. With no expectations other than to deliver titillation, the creative team must have decided to use this freedom to play around in the horror genre. They aimed for some sort of horror comedy, but instead they ended up something just outright weird. And not cool hipster weird, just really ineptly weird.

So the film is about an Undertaker, and his pals who work at the local diner. The three of them are unscrupulous fellows who work together to commit murder for their mutual benefit. For the undertaker it to bring in business, so that he can sneakily overcharge the surviving families, and for the cooks it brings in free meat. And together, they make up a fourth rate, blood thirsty Three Stooges. Which is at odds with the film's Herschell Gordon Lewis style violence and blood. There's incredibly goofy scenes where a man accidentally steps on a skateboard and is taken on a joyride against his will, or another where a cream pie is thrown in one of our villain's face. But then there's legitimately upsetting scenes where a woman is whipped to death with a chain, or where our villains break into a woman's apartment and threaten her with knives before stabbing her. There's even one scene where two of the villains are playing around with bug spray, only for it to be revealed it's deodorant, and not even minutes later are they deep in a victim's guts represented by what looks like footage of an actual intestinal operation. Said scene also concludes with said victim waking up and screaming, only for her screams to trail off as she passes away. Goofy and disturbing is a very hard mix to get right, but the filmmakers don't even attempt to make it work.

In a way, I wish I could recommend this film as a kind of gonzo good-bad movie. But this isn't Ed Wood or The Room, this isn't an entertaining piece of outsider art. There's no craft or talent on display. Loads of things happen but there's little in the way of story. The editing is inept, and pacing is nonexistent. The film is both pornographically obsessed with women, exclusively featuring man on women violence, and yet treats them like afterthoughts. Maybe if there was more talent or craft behind the camera, then the film would have been watchable. But as is, I just recommend staying away.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2018 10:22

SomeJazzyRat: Nov 2, 2012; Hmmm...

The List :skeltal:

Hell Yeah!

Re-Animator!

Hell Yeah!

Fake Edit: Go watch it!

# ¿ Oct 16, 2018 02:57

SomeJazzyRat: Nov 2, 2012; Hmmm...

The List :skeltal:

So, this film starts out amazingly strong. There's that vibe of just entering a quality makeshift Haunted House. You're anxious, totally uncertain about what's going on around the next corner, where that scream is coming from, if that prop is just a prop or if it's going to animate the moment you walk on by, etc. A building fear that grows and grows until overflowing, and explodes in harmless release over and over again. You feel it radiating off the film in it's prelude presenting a 'Youtube Upload' of the tragedy. Then all of the sudden people are yelling to turn back with urgency and panic, moments away from starting a stampede. Not only are they scared, but something inexplicable has made them afraid they are going to die. This is a very different scare, a much more existential fear of true danger. A kind that affects you deeply, and stays with you like a scar. It's a brilliant transition, one that makes the whole film.

We commonly use the criticism "It's a short film stretched across 90 minutes". And in a lot of cases it's justified, a heinous death knell of a bad movies. And to a certain extent, I think that statement is true of this film. Likely, if uploaded it's climax online, explained that it was a patchwork of sources, reconstructing the timeline of a tragedy, it would work just as well. However, I think this works inspite of that. Partially it's helped by it's faux-documentary presentation, a format that naturally is building towards a hypothesis and resolution to it's evidence. The lead up to the climax is perfectly entertaining in it's own right, especially with some pretty decent scares along the way. Though the only benefit it gives is some explanation of some scares in the climax, though most of the events remains inexplicable

What this film is ends up being is an experiment of sorts. A kind of test bed of a number of scary scenarios, playing around in the reality of what those scenarios mean. But even then, the plot isn't 100% rational, forcing the plot to progress to sometimes unnatural points to allow further scares to happen. Choices aren't really made to link a thematic point, or to depart a message on the audience. It is above all else, nakedly and shamelessly, a haunted house ride. One more blatant that The Conjuring films, and certainly less self conscious about that fact. It's only goal is to spook the audience, and considering it's subject matter it works exceptionally well.

# ¿ Oct 16, 2018 10:36

SomeJazzyRat: Nov 2, 2012; Hmmm...

The List :skeltal:

In the climax of the film, Ethan Hawke is dispatching a number of masked Purge-ers attempting to come at him. All of them hide, run around, and lunge over his pool table, attempting to kill him with axes, pool cues, guns, and other weaponry. Instead, he manages to dodge, counter, and execute every last one of them. In this moment I realized the movie had an identity problem. It desperately wants to believe that it's a horror movie, rather than the action thriller that it actually is. What this movie suffers from is a lack of focus, and an over abundance of misguided vision. It's overstuffed with too many concepts, the home invasion, the mysterious stranger lurking hiding in shadows, the siege warfare, the broken family, the creepy army, the vengeful boyfriend, the jealous neighbors, etc. In theory they could have worked, but in practice it results in an overstuffed movie. This film deserved a leaner script, and much stronger villains. More aesthetically diverse ones, with a variety of personalities that encapsulate the politics this movie is railing against. As is, they are just a bunch of theater kids imitating what they think is creepy. If you would like a much more succinct indictment of White People, I would recommend Murder Party. If you want a much more intense siege film, try Assault on Precinct 13. Home Invasion, maybe The Strangers. Purge movie? I imagine Universal Studio's Halloween Horror Nights did the premise much better than this film.

A Podcast I'm listening to is doing a rewatch of The Purge series, and watched this in preparation for listening to it. This movie certainly is a unique case of being both the first and the worst entry in the series, so I certainly hope to be pleasantly surprised by the sequels.

13. Interview With The Vampire (1994) (Fran Challenge 5: Birth of Horror)

I feel like my 20's were defined by my ability to make people feel old. A week after I turned 18, I went to go see Battle Royale at a local art house theatre. They were serving beer, so no one under age was allowed (to clarify, in some parts of Canada the age to drink is 18). I was required to show ID to the ticket taker, and she informed me I was too young to watch. I had to point out that 1994 was indeed 18 years ago, and you could see in this woman's eyes that her understanding of the world had completely changed. Understanding that from that moment forward she was growing ever closer to dying. It set a tone for the low key hostility the world treated my youth. But Battle Royale was pretty cool movie though.

There's probably a pretty good through line I could draw between that, the immortality of vampires, and the way humanity's has vitriol for their existence. But that requires a lot more thought and consideration for this film than I actually have. Not that I necessarily hate it, it's more just an overall apathy and some aversion to it's style and content. The film is pretty much a romantic melodrama without an object of affection. A cradle to the grave biopic without a proper historical figure. A gothic horror that replaced simmering terror with overbearing guilt. An Epic by content rather than by scope. There's a lot going on, and that's probably by design due to it's source material. The only through line is Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise, and unfortunately I can't help but believe Brad Pitt was miscast as Louis. Sure he can bring that vampiric sexiness, but not the weight of being alive for hundreds of years and through countless tragedies. In this period piece, his entire performance just feels anachronistic. However, Tom Cruise as Lestat is a low key joy to watch. He has the sexiness, and the charisma and attitude to bring this film to life. I'm not sure if I could call it great, but it has a Nic Cage-ian style fun to it. Also of mention is Kirsten Dunst, who also manages to act circles around Pitt with a decent performance of her own. In fact, it's only around her that I think Pitt manages to find his role in the character, the life and emotion he should be embodying.

I'm sure this film was important to some people when this movie came out, and remains to be one to this day. But to me it was mainly forgettable. A film that I could barely pay attention to, even in it's more action packed moments. It's a film that I will admit is objectively a competently produced film, but it's one that has no chemistry with me.

# ¿ Oct 17, 2018 07:25

SomeJazzyRat: Nov 2, 2012; Hmmm...

The List :skeltal:

1. Welcome to Willits (Fran Challenge 1: Love Something You Hate)
2. Multiple Maniacs (Fran Challenge 2: Queer Horror)
3. The Phantom of the Opera 1925 Featuring commentary by Andrew Lloyd Webber (as portrayed by Paul F. Tompkins)
4. Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II (Fran Challenge 3: Hometown Horror)
5. Dawn of the Dead (2004) (Fran Challenge 4: Best of the Worst)
6. Creep 2
7. I am the Pretty Thing That Lives In The House
8. Silent Hill
9. The Undertaker and his Pals
10. Re-Animator
11. Hell House LLC
12. The Purge (2013)
13. Interview With The Vampire (1994) (Fran Challenge 5: Birth of Horror)
14. He Never Died

(Don't know why it's square, but I can't really be bothered to fix it)

So, this is a solid Middle Of The Road. It's a Tarentino-esq wannabe that elevates itself through a simmering supernatural absurdity. It's not great, but it's got buckets full of watchability. For the most part, it's exclusively because of Henry Rollins. And Henry Rollins is pretty loving good at playing a total weirdo hardass. Like a John Wick type, he's completely loving done with this poo poo and is only doing it out of absolute necessity. But unlike John Wick, he doesn't even give the pretense of professionalism. A conversation with his ex-wife has him delivering the line 'I Hate You' about a dozen times. It's not even something he feels, it's a universal fact that he's uncertain that she is aware of. That maybe through repetition she'll understand and never ever bother him again. Plus, he'll drop these odd ticks or lines that suggest a lot of history in Rollins character. You can feel that a lot more attention was put into his character, his history and his place in the world, compared to almost all other aspects of the film. But I'd less say that's a flaw, and more the filmmakers really leaning into the film's strength.

It's not a horror film, but it's sensibilities is horror adjacent. Like the venn diagram between 'People who like Dawn of the Dead (either version)' and 'People who like this movie' has a decent overlap, if not the latter being subsumed by the former. Also it features Steven Ogg, a.k.a. Trevor from GTAV/The Locksmith from Broad City, in the second most entertaining role in the movie.

15. Leatherface

Honestly, I think Texas Chainsaw 3D might have been the worst film I have ever seen. It set a bar so low, it was practically just a pole laying on the ground. So congratulations Leatherface, you cleared that bar and then some. At the very least, this film has vision some sort of vision and the talent behind the camera to see it through. Which, for some reason, is a lot more than most of the TCM films can say for themselves. That said, it doesn't feel like it's trying to adapt the original film's style or tone. The cinematography is almost too artistic and cinematic compared to it's predecessor. If anything, it feels like it's trying to adapt the film's reputation, the film that America thinks it is. A brutal, gory film, featuring horrific, random violence against innocent people. And the people behind Leatherface are trying to outdo it in a very Extreme fashion (and they should, considering they directed the original Inside), with frequent gruesome trauma and consciously dark amorality. It does what it sets out to do, and I can't really imagine them doing it any other way.

I respect this film on those merits. However, I can't really say that I'm a huge fan of it. It's fine, and I don't regret seeing it. All things considered, I could argue this is the second best film in the series. I just don't think it has that spark that rises it above just being fine. It doesn't have that Henry Rollins factor that sucks in the audience to make it truly enjoyable. It's all workman like, and sometimes that's fine. But in the end I just wished that it had that something else for me to hold on to.

SomeJazzyRat fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Oct 20, 2018

# ¿ Oct 19, 2018 11:07

SomeJazzyRat: Nov 2, 2012; Hmmm...

The List :skeltal:

I've certainly seen a number of reviews in this thread stating 'I don't know what I can say about this that hasn't already been said'. I've used that phrase before, during the first year I participated in this challenge. Reflecting on it, I think I used it as a self conscious defense against judgement. A pro-active self criticism that my film analysis skills weren't 'Mature' enough. That I couldn't develop a hot take that would have people fawning. Over the years doing this challenge, I came understand that criticism and reviews aren't about that. They're supposed to be honest reflections of my feelings and engagement with a film, even if that experience was identical to most everyone else who watched it.

This preamble brings me to my hypocritical point, that I feel like everything there is to say about this film is self evident. It's reached a wide cult status in the horror community, like Trick R Treat, as one of the few highlights of an arguably dire decade of horror. It's reputation precedes itself, as a meta commentary on the Slasher genre that still manages to work in a post-Scream era. It's a mockumentary/slasher that works equally well as comedy and horror. A love letter to a dying genre. A drat enjoyable hour and a half. And I have to concede, I generally agree with every one of it's points. No, It's not a flawless masterpiece whose message transcends the medium. It's just a fun horror film, that's both equally charming and somewhat unsettling. It's ambitions doesn't overreach it's means, and yet manages to make it's scope feel much larger than it actually does. I will say I was surprised by the sincere upbeat heart this film has, conveyed by the sheer enthusiasm of it's leading man, Nathan Baesel. He's just this huge dork with an abundance of love for his hobby and people to share it with, which just so happens to be artistically inclined, hyper designed killing sprees.

I would highly recommend pairing this with Creep 2 for a night of lovably weird creepozoids.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2018 09:22

SomeJazzyRat: Nov 2, 2012; Hmmm...

The List :skeltal:

From the son of Mario Bava, Lamberto Bava, and with heavy influence from Dario Argento, comes something that is very Italian, and even more so an Italian Horror Movie. The tone and cinematography is incredibly competent, and sometimes even extraordinary. And meanwhile, the writing, the acting, and storytelling are second rate, borderline incompetent even. The approach is to do whatever works, with little regard to anything other than what would make a Good Scary Movie. It's not a great movie, but it's a drat entertaining one. It's bloody, and occasionally gross. It's characters are weird Twin Peaks-ian facsimiles of people. It's pacing isn't necessarily bad, but occasionally will divert from the action of the film in really bizarre ways. It's visceral violence upsetting, and the titular creature's omnipotent control over the space bring to mind disturbing implications. It's climax involves (just in case you want to go in blind) a ridiculous battle against the titular Demons from on top a dirt bike, riding on top of multiple row of seats, while wielding a samurai sword. It's too clumsy to be a good movie, but it's got way too much talent and vision to be a Good Bad Movie. It's somewhere nebulously outside of the spectrum, and fits right in with general oeuvre of Italian Horror.

18. Saw (2004)

First time watching any of the movies in this series. Several months ago I bought a set of the complete series (minus Jigsaw), with the intention of binging them for the Challenge. I figure it's probably well known that this one is notorious for being atypical for the series. This film's follow ups would bring the series a reputation of being simultaneously a showcase of over the top death machines and operatic melodrama. And those elements are present here, but are more background elements to the proto-Escape Room shenanigans and the mystery of the two leads' circumstances. It's the film aiming to be more than a horror movie, and maybe even reach that brass ring of being known as a 'Thriller'. But it's also hard to reconcile it's ambitions with it's indulgences; The creepy doll, the pig masks, and other over-the-top elements bring it right back into the horror ghetto.

Ultimately, this is a fine film. It's flawed, such as Jigsaw's over the top and overly competent nature, Leigh Whannell being nowhere on the same level as Cary Elwes, and the plot being unnecessarily elaborate. But it's fine, it's watchable, and it's for the most part still effective. It's just hard to reconcile what the series' reputation is, what this film aspires to be, and what this film actually is. And as well, it just hard to take the film's cinematography and editing seriously. It just feels like a cheap nu-metal music video, a product that can only be from a very specific point and time. Perhaps it's the same phenomenon as Shakespeare, where the film's style reached such a large cultural mass that it's no longer fresh or original. Though on the other hand, the largely agreed upon philosophy of design (though applies to cinematography and editing too) is that if it's working well then it should be almost invisible, and not be super noticable. Like I said, it's a fine film, but ultimately and unfortunately flawed.

19. Possession (1981) (Fran Challenge 6: Video Nasty)

Looking through the list of Video Nasties, this film seemed like the odd one out. Most of the films listed are about evil do-ers going out and inflicting harm, or outsiders interloping at the cost of their lives. This film, however, is about a married couple's marriage breaking down in an emotionally draining, metaphorical manner. It seems to pop up every several months or so in the Horror Thread, and generally with the same response each time: 'What the gently caress did I watch'. It's not spoken about in the same way that other films on the list are. Certainly, most are known for their bloody violent reputation, like The Evil Dead or Cannibal Holocaust. But when people talk about this film, it's described as a more emotionally disturbing, interpersonal horror. Most Video Nasties are titillating, but Possession is disquieting.

So yeah, 'What the gently caress did I watch' is a fair assessment. It's very Arthouse-y and very European, so it has a lot more going on in it than a typical Horror film does. The atmosphere is alternately switching between ethereal and causticly toxic, the storytelling is fairly dreamlike in it's progression, and the characters act very alien in their motivation. The film is intentionally confusing at times, and holds little answers for it's big questions. Plot and motivation are second to it's themes and atmosphere. The performance and story can be described as Romantic (the art period, not the emotions), being at times overwrought yet anchored in understandable emotions. You can't help but imagine the process of filming this movie as being inscrutable and exceptionally agonizing. This isn't to say that watching the film is itself an agonizing, nigh unwatchably brutal experience itself (like how people imagine torture porn films are, or Salo, or even the original Martyrs is [spoiler]me in this case[/spoilers]). However, it's not accurate to say that it's an easy watch as well. There is legitimately upsetting content in this film, and it's earned a place on a list of notorious objectionable films (though none of the films deserved to have been banned completely, Possession especially).

In conclusion, Possession ~~is a land of contrasts~~ makes for a great date movie.

20. Saw 2

So yeah, the series is almost there, but not quite. The death traps certainly are getting more exposure compared to its predecessor, but the film still feels too rooted in interpersonal drama. And maybe that would be fine, but everyone lives on the spectrum of boring-to-rear end in a top hat. No one in particular is interesting, I would argue even the villains Jigsaw and spoiler-not-spoiler Amanda too. Character motivations are based on stereotypes rather than history or the events folding in front of them. And even then, plot progression is more arbitrary than natural. Even it's twist was highly, highly telegraphed. And even once it was evident what the reveal was, it still took like 5 minutes for the characters to catch up. This is just loving awful script.

As well, the camera flourishes seemed to have been a touch toned down. However, this seemed to have been replaced with even more incompetent filmmaking. Shot quality is schizophrenic within scenes, switching from looking like digital HD to blown out 16mm within one particularly boring conversation. The lighting is flat, and the shots often look like they come out of a low framerate reality show. I mean, my god, the producers should feel embarrassed judging this appropriate for a Wide Release. This isn't the worst film I've seen (far from it), but this was the most evidently incompetent and uninteresting film I've seen of the whole month.

Also, the best role Donnie Wahlberg ever had was as Mark's brother on Doug Loves Movies. Check it.

# ¿ Oct 24, 2018 09:00

SomeJazzyRat: Nov 2, 2012; Hmmm...

The List :skeltal:

I think the franchise finally found its footing. Still did not like this one. It finally got to the point of being actual torture porn, extensive with scenes of overt suffering and agonizing pain. In fact, the story itself seems to be nothing but a vehicle for extended sequences of mental anguish and debilitating trauma. And I, personally, do not enjoy that. I can't engage with it straight faced, as the film revels in creating agony in the empathetic members of it's audience. And trying to watch it emotionally detached just reveals the film as exceptionally ridiculous, with tragic moment after tragic moment crash into one another. It revels in creating Fargo-esq Stupid People Tragedies, but it's all played so straightforward and dire that it robs any of the fun. It may be a more competent production than 2, but it isn't any more fun watch at an additional 15 minutes longer.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2018 00:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 10:14

SomeJazzyRat: Nov 2, 2012; Hmmm...

So, I ended up barely failing the challenge just short of the finish line. I'm less disappointed in not getting that last film in than I am that I couldn't finish all of the Fran Challenges. I started drafting up this post the weekend before the deadline, but work and life got hectic up until Nov 1 and I just ran out of time. I tried in the spare moments to write up and catch up when I could, but just couldn't get caught up until tonight. I know Fran closed 'Entries', but I still want to post the reviews of all the films I got in before I woke on Nov 1.

:skeltal:

The List :skeltal:

This film was a wild ride. The audience is dragged along on it's journey with wild abandon, drenched in it's constantly changing attitude. It's darkly humorous, furiously angry, and legitimately emotional. It's a somewhat a member of the Kaiju genre, taking a lot from its forefathers in terms of thematic messaging, conflict, and content. However where Godzilla and it's ilk go for the macro, with impossibly large creatures and massive scope, this film is focused on the micro. It's monster is believably small for a 'Giant Monster' (being marginally larger than an elephant or hippo), it's setting is relatively small and focused mostly around one location, and the story is focused exclusively on one family. Our heroes being a clan that is comprised almost completely of gently caress Ups, some of whom wish they were no longer part of, the others unable to function without the former. And when the youngest daughter is take captive by the monster, it's up to these gently caress ups to save her.

Not only does this movie take a lot from Kaiju films, but it has plenty to give back to the genre too. The biggest compliment I could give is that Shin Godzilla likely swiped most of its best ideas from this film. The major antagonist of this film (aside from the monster) is a Korean government who refuses to believe this girl could even be alive, working alongside the forces of an interventionist US military. And instead of helping anyone, their actions consist coming up with excuses to refuse to do the right thing, covering up their mistakes, and kidnapping this family to keep their secrets from leaking. There's such disdain for both authority and the US, it actually got an endorsement from North Korea (which gives me mixed feelings about liking this film). That aside, The Host is still an excellent film and rightfully considered one of South Korea's best Genre exports.

23. Saw 4

I remember that it was about the time of this film that we all were resigned to the eternal fact that we were stuck with a yearly Saw sequel, no matter what.

This is slight improvement on it's predecessors, if only for the fact that it manages to deftly combine both it's traps and police melodrama bullshit. It's story and plot are still remarkably ridiculous, and it's traps still over the top. Where I was furious with Saw 3's pointless nihilism, at least this film feels like it's building to somewhat of a thematic point. It's still not great, just somewhat more watchable.

24. Night of the Living Dead (1968) (Fran Challenge 11: Dead and Buried)

I actually caught this by accidentally. I was going to the theatre to watch the new Halloween, but I found out that this film was playing at the same time. So instead, I went for a double feature. It was my first time actually watching it, and as a result I kinda wish the pre-show wasn't attached to it. It featured a bunch of interviews with notable filmmakers, Robert Rodriguez, Del Toro, Frank Darabont, etc., all relating their favorite moments, and almost exclusively all of them happen very late in the movie. But even under slightly unideal circumstances, I still enjoyed the experience.

I was actually surprised with how surprisingly influential this film was. Before this viewing, I figured that the tacti-cool survivalist fantasy aspect of the Zombie Apocalypse was an invention of the internet age. Internet discussions about people flag waving that their plan of Fortifying a Costco/Walmart is totally original and cool, and eventually devolving into whether or not a bicycle is an practical getaway tool against a horde of zombies. So, I was actually surprised with how intrinsic it is to the genre, with this movie dedicating a notable portion of the runtime to two men dickwaving about whose survival plan would be the most effective.

The other thing that got me was how it managed to make this film feel so huge, despite how small it is by necessity. It makes the scope of the film's scope feel huge through small things like the Radio/TV broadcasts relating facts clinically, the roving gangs of zombie hunters, and anecdotal monologues. It feels like so many things are happening all at once, despite being confined to a single location. Add to that pyro and intelligent use of extras, and this film feels so much more expensive than it actually is.

So yeah, I have to agree with this film's assessment as one of the genre's greatest works. It manages to still feel visceral and relatively hardcore by doing things like eating actual flesh/organs on screen and (just in case anyone reading this thread is in the same position as me) showing a little girl brutally murdering her own mother. The only thing that is keeping it from being perfect is Barbra. A complete non-entity, the personification of frustration, acting comatose in a script full of proactive and reactive characters. Her inability to be useful goes well beyond belief, almost fantastical in how unhelpful she is. But other than that still phenomenal. And I cannot recommend enough the Janus Films restoration; it makes this film look almost contemporary.

25. Halloween (2018) (Fran Challenge 10: Fear and Now)

The original Halloween deserves a better legacy than it has gotten. I hope it goes without saying for most people in this thread that it is one of the greatest (and personally, my favorite) horror film of all time. I feel like the only filmmaker behind the camera that had that same reverence was Rob Zombie, and even his attempt was cut off at the knees by executives who didn't share it.

As this film was announced, there were two level of reactions. 1, 'Wait, these guys are making a Halloween film?', and 2, 'Holy poo poo, these guys get it.' Since February of last year, I've been holding my breath prepared for the end result to be dire. Thankfully, I can relax easy knowing what they made was good enough: a film that could pass the incredibly low bar of 'Best Halloween Sequel'.

This film isn't perfect, but it's pretty drat scary. The only real issue is a moment of wonky-ness as the plot takes a shocking left turn in order for the third act to happen. But outside of that, this film is pure Halloween. Michael Myers isn't a hulking brute, a single minded kill machine, or an implausible force of death. He is a man, optimized for killing, and set free in a world that makes his massacre feel believable (even if the set up that he is give is somewhat ludicrous). He's malleable to a situation, capable of being ruthlessly direct in his attacks, or being kinda playful and out of the way in order to set up the most optimal attack. He has the instincts of an animal, with the intelligence of man. He is distinctly, and unmistakably, Michael Myers.

And of course, sharing the spotlight is Jamie Lee Curtis, making her grand return to the franchise for the second time. Laurie has turned into a Sarah Connor type figure, a woman hosed up by a traumatic experience, and who resolves to never become that victim again. Though where other movies would make this change into a positive, badass direction, this movie is cognizant of the cost of living outside of society. Keep in mind that Sarah Conner was introduced in T2 within an Institution for a reason. Though Sarah's situation was 'solved' by vindication, Laurie will never get that resolution. In the intervening time, Laurie Strode lost everything including her sense of security. Her attempts to reclaim it was costly and alienating, and even her fantasy to get that closure had a huge human cost. Even the underlying text of the movie states her beliefs should never have been validated in a just world. But in the end she was right, but she is never a righteous character. It's an amazingly strong story for a character that was never this developed in the original film, and Curtis absolutely does her justice.

And amazingly, the other lead actresses, both Judy Greer and fresh face Andi Matichak, are able to keep up with Curtis even with less remarkable characters. And the three of them working together in the final climax is an amazing concerto of badass moments in the face of such dire circumstances. It's an imperfect film, but it feels so right especially for where we are right now. It's filmmaking is incredibly considerate and well shot, making it stand out even among this genre's high points. It feels intentionally feminist in most of its story choices, which the world really needs more of considering the state we're in. And above all else this is a legit scary movie, just like the original, which is perhaps the highest praise I could give it. Also, one weird thing, there's an actress who looks just like Ellie Kemper, which weirded me out, until I found out it wasn't her, which weirded me out more.

26. Near Dark (Fran Challenge 8: Once In A Lifetime)

So, Kathryn Bigelow. In the 80's and 90's she was pumping out genre pic after genre pic, generally ranging from good to phenomenally great. Then the 2000's rolled around, and her efforts were focused on more 'legitimate' affairs, of stories of real people and of their true events. Then she started winning academy awards. That sealed that, and she hasn't looked back since.

Near Dark was her first Studio film. A combination of western and vampire flick. It was her first and only foray into the horror genre, though she would flirt with it's close cousin, the Thriller, a couple of times. But nothing as fantastically horrific as this.

Anyways, this film is much more of a Western than it is a Horror film. The vampire elements more seem to be an excuse to allow a gang of criminals to roam free in then contemporary America, as well allow the script to briefly detour into navel-gazy self pity on the nature of eternity. Though they do manage some pretty good effect shots and bloody violence as a result of the character's paradoxical immortal/fragile nature. It's a pretty fun film, with a bunch of fun performances (Bill Paxton's unhinged psychopath especially). The story is fine but unexceptional, more a vehicle for fun action and bloody massacres. It's not necessarily a classic, but it is deserves the label of cult classic easily.

27. Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

Every Halloween, I traditionally rewatch two movies, my two favorite horror movies of all time. This is one of them. I can never resolve which one of them is my favorite, but upon this rewatch I think TCM might be my favorite of the two. I didn't get any particular new insight this year, but I always like catching up with an old friend like this one. It's such a weird happy accident of a film.

28. Halloween (1978)

This is actually a fan poster. The dude who made it has a hobby of making retro ads for contemporary films, most recently a bunch of newspaper ads for TV broadcasts. I Highly recommend checking them out.

So, this is the other film I rewatch every Halloween. Once again, no new real insights, though it's fun to compare this to the new film right after watching it. One parallel I just noticed is that in this film Laurie gets attacked non-fatally with a knife, and falls down a bannister onto the stairwell. In the new film, Michael gets attacked with a knife, and falls down the stairs into the basement. I think TCM barely edges it out as my favorite as that one is so gonzo where this one is straight laced. Still, I hold this film very dearly as a close second.

29. WNUF Halloween Special

I barely got to participate in Scream Stream this year. I've come to regret not catching Winterbeast, cause that one sounds like it was an experience. But it's hard to dedicate myself to watching several hours of livestreams when they're all at the same time I'm working (stupid late shifts). Anyways, I was able to catch a break from work long enough to catch this little oddity from Lurdiak. An old local Halloween Special from their childhood, featuring a local news crew exploring a haunted house and performing a live seance. It seems like the TV Station behind this was trying to perform their own version of Ghostwatch, several years before BBC even came up with it, but ended screwing it up completely before going off the rails in a really bizarre way. Allegedly it can be found online, and it's highly recommended that you catch one with the commercials intact. However, be careful which version you download, the one Lurd ended up showing on Scream Stream had some pretty disturbing footage attached on the end.

Surprised that many goons came from one location though.

Facade coming down, and yeah this is a pretty good mockumentary. Half the fun comes from the Stream pretending that we're watching a real recording of a broadcast for the first time. The other half comes from the ridiculous, low budget commercials for local stores that are referenced both in and out of the program, and even within other commercials. It gives the film an incredibly local, small town feel. However the retro aesthetic feels 95% of the way there, with just a smidge of artifice that really gives it away if you're looking for it. The titular program is pretty fun, though it strains credulity that it would keep going once things go south. Still, a highly welcome Halloween tradition that I wish everyone could participate in.

30. The Exorcist (1973) Extended Edition circa 2000

This Halloween, I wanted to cap it off with a high point. I haven't seen what is commonly considered The Greatest Horror Film Of All Time, and so I wanted to change that this year. I know that plenty of reviews this year have made a point to claim, 'I didn't find it scary, probably because I don't believe in Catholicism'. And I will contend, I didn't find it scary either. But I don't think it's because of a lack of faith, or inability to buy into demonic possession. I was engaged with its story, and could buy into it's premise. I just can't really pinpoint why I didn't find it scary. Maybe it's a similar phenomenon as Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet, where it's ubiquity in pop culture robs it of it's shocking nature. Maybe it's just that I'm completely detached from the fears and context that surrounded it's release (like what could happen to Get Out, in an ideal world). I don't think I could pinpoint exactly what it is, it's just something about certain films from that general era of filmmaking makes it feel like I'm witnessing something rather than experiencing it. I felt the same way with 2001, or The Godfather. I can engage with them, and understand what makes them excellent films. But they don't hit me emotionally the same way other films do, like Night of the Hunter or M or The Apartment.

That said, I completely understand how this film became so infamous. There's very few films that are so well crafted like this one. It feels well done in ways that I couldn't comprehend on my own. It's a similar feeling that I had coming out of Moonlight a years ago. I was also surprised how long the film soaks us into this world before the actual exorcism. I checked the time when it felt like the second act was starting to ramp up, and the film was over an hour in without the principal characters even meeting yet. It allows so much set up to happen and time to pass, that once the possession is complete that the loss and lack of control feel almost physically present. You get to know this young girl so well that it feels like she disappears once the possession is complete, despite the actress being physically present. And the ordeal lasts for such a lengthy period of the movie, that you truly feel the loss of this girl up until the very end of the movie. These are just a few things that make this movie so phenomenal, I completely understand the film's reputation as one of the best of the decade, and one of the best of the medium.

By the time the film was done, midnight had passed and entered into the early hours of morning. I had one last tradition I wanted to get out of the way before calling it a night, so I pulled up:

This is still a really charming and low-key beautiful work, carrying aloft a fairly base and pleasant bit of populist entertainment. I remember watching this at way too young an age (Probably about the same age as Sally), and being confused and unsatisfied by things like The Red Baron's journey across the french countryside, Charlie Brown continually getting rocks, and the fact that The Great Pumpkin doesn't show up. It's something that my mom loved, and made sure her kids always watched each year. So yeah, Halloween doesn't feel exactly complete until I catch this.

So yeah, in conclusion I'm going to set my bar lower next year so that I don't feel so pressed to get too much done when I don't have the time. In reflection on this year:
Best Movie: Creep 2. Such an oddly lovable, loving movie for such disturbing subject matter.
Worst Movie: Saw 2. I don't know why but this film felt exceptionally incompetent and uninteresting.
Most Bizzare: The Undertaker and His Pals. Not good, but really bizarre.
Hell Yeah Award for Hell Yeah: Re-Animator. Hell Yeah.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2018 03:30

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > OCTOBER HORROR CHALLENGE: The Final Chapter ... (aka Demons 3)