|
Yeah one of my favorite parts of these challenges is watching a movie someone else reviewed so I we can talk about it or something like that. You don’t want to get into heated debate or anything but it’s fun to talk movies with your friends. I’m of course in. I’ll get my poo poo together tonight. But thanks to Basebf for doing this, for Fran for all the years of service, for GMM for doing May, to Dali for the poll (which all I did was make some lists for), everyone who suggested challenges, and everyone who will take part and helps make this community what it is. Here’s to another fun and safe spooky season. I should have suggested a challenge where someone watches a movie off the Bracketology master list to go with GMM’s poll challenge. Ah well. Live and learn. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Sep 29, 2023 |
#
¿
Sep 29, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
Ok. I'm in. I will be doing what I did the last few years and trying to both do Letterboxd's annual Hooptober challenge and my own Bracketology HalloweeNIT challenge. And of course the challenges in here. I'm not completely insane so I'll count challenge crossovers when able. 31 new films is kind of the standard but its kind of a moot one because if I do the rest it just happens. I also have a general goal to complete Letterboxd collections/franchises and enjoy marathoning them especially with Mama Goat who hasn't seen them. And I'll watch other stuff. Fill other year long Letterboxd challenges I'm doing. I'm nuts. I work from home. I care for Mama Goat and she loves watching the movies with me. There will be many. My list is already too long and I haven't even figured out the SA challenges yet. More will be added as we go. God help me. 🎃💀Halloween 2023: HooptoberX and HalloweeNIT💀🎃 I'll probably wait until tomorrow since its 3:30 in the morning and I can at least feel like its October when I get some decorations started and midnight passes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2023 08:39
|
|
|
gey muckle mowser posted:I’m not sure how the first couple Saw films ever got lumped into the “torture porn” category, like you said they aren’t even heavy on the gore (my partner can’t stand gore at all and even she has no problem with the first Saw). The later Saw films definitely get gorier but I still wouldn’t call them torture porn. Seems like a label applied by people who didn’t see them and just assumed that’s what they were like. There are certainly films out there where the label is apt but they are far from mainstream horror franchises like Saw. I mean it’s specifically a series about a voyeuristic sadist who tortures people. So it’s an easy enough path there. But I think it’s a case of how subgenres don’t tend to look like what we think of them at the start. The first slashers or giallos or whatever tend to be more amalgamations or experiments of some other genre. A thriller with a new twist or something. That’s probably what SAW dude. A thriller/slasher where the killer tortures his victims in elaborate ways rather than chases them around or something. But the way these things go is it’s usually the imitators and derivative works that really reduce things to their base elements. So SAW indirectly (and I guess arguably with some of its sequels directly) inspires films that can’t do what it does so just leans harder on the “torture porn”.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2023 19:12
|
|
|
 - (1) Night of the Demons (1988) Directed by Kevin S. Tenney; Written by Joe Augustyn Watched on Shudder I held out almost to midnight but as long as it finishes after midnight I’m in Spooky Season. And I got some decorations up so I started with a rewatch that is very of the season. Only seen once years back so interested to see if it makes a bigger impression on me one way or another and been anticipating starting here for weeks. And its an enjoyable and appropriate start to the season even if I’m not sure it really left a big impression on me. Its cool, well paced, good effects, some sexiness. Its very 80s. It also definitely feels like its biting off the Evil Dead Demonites thing but its doing it decently well. And of course there’s the lipstick scene. That’s like the one thing I did remember. But to be honest the rest of the film feels a little shallow. Its always nice to see Linnea Quigley… and we always see a lot of her which is nice. And Amelia Kinkade is good as Angela as both the pre and post Demonite versions. Everyone else is… fine. Very standard 80s horror archetypes filling the roles. I think that’s kind of the thing. There’s not much deeper going on there. We get the characters you expect in their one dimension and never really get a second. Even Angela feels underdeveloped and like less of the lead it feels like she should be. I suppose the focus is more on the usual final girl especially since Cathy Podewell was on Dallas at the time but she too is a pretty generic good girl trope. Quigley did manage to bring a ton of character to her role but that’s Quigley. She’s not famous for her breasts. I mean… maybe she is. But lots of women took off their clothes in 80s horror films. There’s a reason Quigley is an icon. She has it. So I mean, yeah. Its kind of thin and its kind of derivative and its kind of a poor man’s Evil Dead. But its fun enough and a good Spooky Season mood builder. A solid if not blow away start to my season and I’m genuinely looking forward to seeing Kinkade reprise the Angela role in the sequels. Just barely October and I’m already planning to binge an entire franchise. Its Spooky Season. Since we’re allowing rewatches I’m knocking off some of the challenges early. Basebf555 posted:
 1 (2). Night Terrors (1993) Directed by Tobe Hooper; Written by Daniel Matmor and Rom Globus Watched on Screambox Sucks hallucinating your Jesus freak dad at your first drug fueled orgy. Starting Hooptober later than most so time to get some work in starting with the challenge's name sake Tobe Hooper. And he brings Robert England playing the Marquis de Sade so that’s certainly an intriguing pitch. Although was sadly let down. The thing I appreciate most about Hooper is that he really bounced around a lot with style and genres. Even within his own TCM franchise his sequel is such a different kind of movie from his original. Its hard to get a sense of what a “Hooper film” is because unlike a lot of “auteurs” he doesn’t really do the same thing that often. And while a lot of directors can do one or two things well Hooper manages to do well with most of them. Here he’s kind of diving into something vaguely resembling horny euro thrillers and those S&M period 70s horrors and maybe the erotic thrillers of the 90s. You know what I’m talking about right? I mean its a movie about Marquis de Sade. Sorta. To be honest its a bit of a mess. It makes enough sense i guess but the way the story is told kind of makes you feel like it doesn’t. This too might be part of the 70s trippy euro dream like vibe that the film seems to be going for. Then again it might be because the the script apparently went through a bunch of rewrites from a period piece about the OG perv to a weird amalgamation of random flashbacks to de Sade giving little speeches while one of his descendants has a horny murderous plot. At least he does him proud. But it feels real loose and without a lot of purpose. Or an ending. Our main girl didn’t do much in the movie besides wander around high and horny and while she’s more or less fine she’s not really that compelling of a lead. And the film seems more interested in getting her naked and horny and sexy and all. Its a very horny movie but one without a lot of purpose to the horny. A sexy hardbody, lots of horny, and a vaguely evil plot might be enough for some. And Hooper more or less does a good job directing. But its underwhelming. England is kind of underused even if he seems like he’s giving it his best and its just not really got a lot going on. Its just kind of all horny and no steak. Its so horny that when a puppet show started I immediately knew it would end with them loving. Its that kind of movie. And like I said maybe a kind of 70s euro horny dreamy thing that might work if you like that stuff? I dunno. But just kind of underwhelming beyond the sexy body. And a few more of the challenges covered. Almost feels easy for now. That won’t last long. Basebf555 posted:
 2 (3). Nightbooks (2021) Directed by David Yarovesky; Screenplay by Mikki Daughtry and Tobias Iaconis; Based on Nightbooks by J. A. White Watched on Netflix Don't Trust the Witch in Apt 23... I'm sure I'm the first to make that joke. I absoluetely, 100% came here for Krysten Ritter. I love her. I've been meaning to watch this for two years now but I keep pushing it back in October and then not wanting to watch it out of the season. So I decided to just watch it right away in the first hours of October and end this tease. I wasn’t disappointed. Ritter is a fun as the very pretty evil witch and the whole thing is a very good little gateway family safe horror. Its definitely got some Harry Potter in it but its not a wizard school or anything. Its an evil witch kidnapping some kids and threatening them as they’re trapped in her house of monsters. Also there’s a poop sandwich and rainbow vomit so this thing’s a bit all over the map. It arguably starts a little slow and the core story is maybe a little overly familiar. The writers for this didn’t exactly go outside the box. But there’s a lot of visually weird and distinctive stuff going on in this. And some real danger and horror if kind of constructed in that Harry Potter kid adventure way that sort of defuses it a bit? Like a kid wrestling with a horrific little bug monster or it very nearly piercing a kid’s eyeball is all very AHH! but the way its presented is a lot softer of an ahhh. Definitely designed to be safe for the kiddies but not exactly too safe. Ritter’s witch sort of doesn’t do a ton but she’s equal parts scary and hot. She hilariously kind of spends most of the movie being a critic. I don’t know how meta it was intended to be but it works as a kind of meta joke about the usual complaints you get about horror movies these days. You gotta get the details right. You gotta have something real there. You can’t ever have a happy ending. Just sitting there finding something to complain about every story as if she was posting online. Its based on a book so the joke is probably a bit more broad or specifically targeted for the film but it works and it amused me. I like a nice little fun family safe horror. It breaks up the overt horniness, intense gore, and horrific suffering. Others would probably react much like Ritter’s witch to this movie and find much to hate about it. But It does what it wants to do and I enjoyed it. And some more. Not a bad start. Even if it all the easy meta ones and this is an illusion. Basebf555 posted:
I was kind of dreading opening up gimp again so soon after Bracketology but we got Bingo cards so I grabbed lucky number 13.  🎃💀Halloween 2023: HooptoberX and HalloweeNIT💀🎃 Watched - New (Total) [i]- (1) Night of the Demons (1988); 1 (2). Night Terrors (1993); 2 (3). Nightbooks (2021); HooptoberX: 6/41 🎃 HalloweeNIT ‘23: 0/31 🎃 Basebf’s SA Challenges: 6/31 🎃 Completed Collections: 0
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2023 19:54
|
|
THE SAMHAIN CHALLENGE
|
Crescent Wrench posted:3. Happy Death Day (2017) (first viewing) My personal theory is the name is a long game to name the third move Happy Birthday Dear Tr3e.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2023 09:09
|
|
|
I feel displaced. 3 (4). The Last Voyage of the Demeter (2023) Directed by André Øvredal; Screenplay by Bragi Schut Jr. and Zak Olkewicz; Story by Bragi Schut Jr.; Based on "The Captain's Log" from Dracula by Bram Stoker I was hyped for this despite the lackluster reviews. Its a cool idea, there's a solid cast, the vampire looked very goodly Nosferatu, and I dig what André Øvredal has done. So all the parts are there and I think they're all present in the film. It looks good, its acted well, the boat setting simultaneously has a sense of claustrophobia and being trapped and also feels big enough to be lost on or to not know where the danger is. The only real problem here is that its too long. There's a slow pacing that I don't mind at all and think works well.. but its a bit too slow because this thing is just a bit too long. And that just feels like its in the script. Either it needed to be punchier or tighter. But it just gets drawn out a bit too much. I don't feel like I have a lot to say and that feels off to me because I didn't dislike this at all really. I really did like a lot about it and with a little editing to get it down to 90-100 minutes I think I would have loved it. But I dunno. It just misses the mark a little. I still think its a solid watch and has enough going for it to like. And I'd be all for watching the sequel that the movie hilariously teases. But I dunno. As hyped as I was for it I guess I have to agree with the lackluster reviews. But I mean its a good vampire, some gnarly kills, a good cast, a great setting. You can do a lot worse. Basebf555 posted:
 4 (5). Atomic Dog (1998) Directed by Brian Trenchard-Smith; Written by Miguel Tejada-Flores Watched on Youtube Inexplicably this isn't a comedy. Like... at all. I was NOT expecting that. The dog also isn't very atomic. He's just kind of mean and big. Not like supernaturally big. Just a big dog. He’s kind of mean and smart. Not like solving math problems smart, just smart for a dog. But also I mean… he’s also kind of super sympathetic? He’s abandoned as a puppy and then some jerk teens shoot at him and then he wants to be with his kids. Sure, sure. He kills some people. But they were messing with his kids. I mean I’m not taking his side but he’s not exactly Cujo. Well Cujo was sad too. He was a nice dog who just got rabies. So yeah that’s sad too but this is weirdly just kind of a sad movie. Its not scary or anything. The dogs don’t pose any major threat. The dread largely comes in parents worried about their kids. And some dogs die for no real good reason. Its just kind of a bummer. The film’s also got some weird sexual politics. Like there’s this teenage boy and this middle aged neighbor who is some kind of animal expert professor and for some reason there’s this romantic tease between them. And I thought I might be reading too much into it but then there’s like a whole “so why don’t you have a boyfriend?/I’d like one like you but older.” scene. Its weird. And like really out of nowhere in this random rear end completely unedgy TV movie. And then weirdly the final act comes when the dog wants to mate with a little girl? Its weird. Its otherwise an entirely fine but completely punchless film. And again, its kind of weird because its not a mutant monster dog or a rabbit Cujo or animal attack movie or anything. Its just kind of a family melodrama that comes up against a dog family melodrama and sadly someone’s gonna die. Its odd. Not odd in a strange way. Just odd as in I’m not real sure what the hook is here. I guess it was going for more of a generic mainstream family TV movie watch than a full on horror but I dunno. Its odd. Basebf555 posted:
  - Violence Jack: Harlem Bomber (1986) Directed by Osamu Kamijo; Written by Mikio Matsushita Watched on Internet Archive This one is under an hour so it doesn’t count. I considered watching the other Violence Jack OVAs and counting them for Bite Size but nah. I guess I could have found some other shorts to pari with it but I didn’t feel like it. So its just hear and doesn’t count but I watched it for HalloweeNIT so I’m posting it. I'd say this is all constructed at the mindset of a 13 year old but if your 13 year old thinks this much about rape and violence then you should really get them help. Is Jack the hero? An antihero? He’s just like a free roaming psychopath? At one point a kid dies and like thanks Jack because now he can be reunited with his dead mom? Huh? Why are the slave trading rapists more defined characters? Why is the romantic hero a slave trader too? Why did he fly a helicopter into the window of a skyscraper to get into it and why did it work? These are the sort of questions I have and its clear that no one involved in this has any interest in these answers. Just gotta do some more rape and really stupid violence. But also rape. At least its short. 🎃💀Halloween 2023: HooptoberX and HalloweeNIT💀🎃 Watched - New (Total) [i]- (1) Night of the Demons (1988); 1 (2). Night Terrors (1993); 2 (3). Nightbooks (2021); 3 (4). The Last Voyage of the Demeter (2023); 4 (5). Atomic Dog (1998); - Violence Jack: Harlem Bomber (1986); HooptoberX: 7/41 🎃 HalloweeNIT ‘23: 2/31 🎃 Basebf’s SA Challenges: 8/31 🎃 Completed Collections: 0
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2023 13:25
|
|
|
gey muckle mowser posted:I was sure I had seen Dracula 3000 but realized I was confusing it with Dracula 2000, which is not good but still far from the worst Dracula movie. Now I feel compelled to watch 3000 just to see what awfulness I've been missing. For some reason I long assumed Dracula 3000 was a sequel to Dracula 2000.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2023 22:25
|
|
|
Mummy 2 might be a monster mash if we count the Scorpion King as a monster? The first one is kind of a straight monster vs people story though. Cruise’s Mummy kind of is too. Like it’s got references and cameos to other monsters but it’s Tom Cruise vs the Mummy. At least as I recall. I have no idea what I’m doing for that one but I’m just gonna hope Svengoolie and the month makes it happen organically. If not I guess I watch some Abbot and Costello for Halloween.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2023 23:40
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
 - (6). Pumpkinhead (1988) Directed by Stan Winston; Screenplay by Mark Patrick Carducci and Gary Gerani; Story by Carducci, Winston, and Richard C. Weinman; Based on Pumpkinhead by Ed Justin A cult classic in my book but one I kind of second guess every time I watch. Its like I have to rewatch it to be sure but I come away happy with the label. The monster is great. Like absolutely top notch. We got Lance Henriksen in here being great. We got the usual bunch of rear end in a top hat young people but they're earning some comeuppance. Its a simple story of revenge and regret. Really I think the only thing holding the film back is the name. I mean some of the acting and story is probably soft. I dunno about those representations of the local families. But I really do love the core story here of irresponsible kids committing an accidental tragedy, the worst of them demanding they make matters worse because of their refusal to take responsibility and general inhumanity, a father's grief leading him to do something terrible to get revenge, and then his humanity shining through and leading him to try and stop it. Henriksen is great in the key role there and that makes up for whatever iffy performances are had elsewhere. And then there's the great monster. I think I've only seen one other of these but I'm planning to go through the whole franchise this October. I'm not expecting much but Pumpkinhead is the forgotten 80s monster in my book. If only he had a better name maybe he could have been something. But I still appreciate that ugly fucker. Basebf555 posted:
 5 (7). Bird Box (2018) Directed by Susanne Bier; Screenplay by Eric Heisserer; Based on Bird Box by Josh Malerman Watched on Netflix Finally gave this one a shot, although truthfully more out of it hitting a bunch of squares at once in my many challenges than out of a real desire to watch. But its a pretty solid film. Bullock is good in the main role as is a largely excellent support cast. I mean Machine Gun Kelly is in there for some reason but so are John Malkovich, BD Wong, and Lil Rel Howery. But most of them come and go quickly. This is Bullock’s film and its not so subtly about her journey into motherhood and what the means in this post apocalyptic world. Certainly easy to compare it to A Quiet Place but its different enough to feel like its own thing. Birdbox is basically about this woman who starts the film in a calm world worried that she won’t have material instincts or connect with her baby the way they say you just naturally do. She’s kind of got a hard edge and while she’s not an rear end in a top hat she’s certainly not maternal early on. And as we see the jumps into the future when she is a mother we see her struggling with what it means. She wants her children to survive but for what? Not even giving them names and constantly berating them for not following the rules. Bullock walks a line here well. We can clearly see why she’s so high strung and worried. The danger here is hosed. But she’s struggling with the very thing she was worried she might back in the normal world. Does she have that connection? Bullock does well to make this all work without ever disliking or judging her. I kind of felt like the time jumps were clumsy and hurting things in the first half of the film but I did feel like they kind of came together in time. Like they serve a purpose in showing us her journey as the people she meets in this world, the people she loses, touch her and change her. It scares her to lose more or connect with more but they also ultimately play important roles in her eventual journey there. I don’t mind at all that we never get a real explanation for what’s happening. Its loving weird and scary is what it is. And really explaining it could have wandered us a little too closely towards The Happening territory. And I don’t at all mind the ending. Those seem to be the common criticisms? Neither bother me. I wouldn’t say I loved it or it was great or anything. And maybe it was a bit long at 2 hrs+. But I largely enjoyed it and had a good time and I’m curious to check out the spanish sequel. I’ve always liked the idea of exploring an apocalyptic event from multiple angles. So maybe I’ll add that one to the October list. Basebf555 posted:
 6 (8). Private House of the SS (1977) Directed by Bruno Mattei; Screenplay by Bruno Mattei and Giacinto Boncquista What the gently caress is this movie? What even is Naziploitation? Who is this for? Its just an entire film of nazis raping women. I’d call it porn but then I’d have to accept the likelihood that people are turned on by this poo poo. But I don’t know what the gently caress else this is about. It was once argued to me that these sort of films are a bit inaccessible to me as an American and its kind of a trauma of Europeons working through the horrors of the Nazis in the human, non supernatural, even not necessarily Holocaust ways. Just the constant abuses and torture and fascism. I don’t know. I certainly can’t discount the experiences and trauma of people I don’t know but Bruno Mattei was 14 when World War II ended. So I dunno. I don’t understand what this is about and I really don’t think I want to. Basebf555 posted:
 If you want to have a hand in further torturing me you can vote in the HalloweeNIT tournament and decide which kind of terrible film I continue to torture myself with. Vote until 12 noon EST October 5th (or until I get around to it) 🎃💀Halloween 2023: HooptoberX and HalloweeNIT💀🎃 Watched - New (Total) [i]- (1) Night of the Demons (1988); 1 (2). Night Terrors (1993); 2 (3). Nightbooks (2021); 3 (4). The Last Voyage of the Demeter (2023); 4 (5). Atomic Dog (1998); - Violence Jack: Harlem Bomber (1986); - (6). Pumpkinhead (1988); 5 (7). Bird Box (2018); 6 (8). Private House of the SS (1977); HooptoberX: 11/41 🎃 HalloweeNIT ‘23: 3/31 🎃 Basebf’s SA Challenges: 15/31 🎃 Completed Collections: 0 STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Oct 3, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2023 06:36
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:Yeah, Bond is by far the worst part of the movie as you'd expect from an ego project. But everyone else is doing amazing work. Bond's "direction" was apparently so bad that Dickerson wound up being the actual director of the film, too. Yeah Dickerson himself is kind of coy about it I think since he probably doesn’t want to be a dick but the bulk of the cast and crew were all Spike regulars and they’re all pretty clear that they saw this as an opportunity to make their own film. Officially I believe they say Bond directed the acting and Dickerson handled the rest. And you can see a lot of what he’ll do in Demon Knight and Bones being worked out in the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2023 19:24
|
|
|
 7 (9). Vamps (2012) Written and directed by Amy Heckerling Watched on Showtime From the director of Clueless, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, and Look Who’s Talking comes a vampire bestie comedy. Ok. I’ve been curious about this for awhile. Silverstone with Heckerling again and adding in Krysten Ritter who I love. And its set in New York City so it hits my home town love and means I don’t have to go digging through what’s left from my birth year and remind everyone how old I am. And the NYC worked pretty well because it feels like a bit of a love letter to the City and its history and life. Silverstone’s character has lived through 400 years of NYC history and clearly loves it and is moved by the changes and similarities through the time. And that history is part of what makes NYC so great. That you can walks the same streets and see the same buildings and touch the same stones people did so long ago. When I visited Europe I was shaken by the presence of castles and ruins and stuff. Stuff so much older and linking us back thousands of years. The USA is a baby country (as is often expressed by its temperament and ideas) so there’s just not that same kind of history. But NYC has a real through line to its past and that feels like its as kind of Heckerling’s inspiration for this. That being said her comedy doesn’t quite hit. Its not unfunny but its mostly just kind of amusing. Ritter and Silverstone are very fun and charming together, Sigourney Weaver is having a lot of fun as their deranged vampire master, and there’s a lot of random B comics in here doing a solid job. I have no complaints but I don’t have any real highlights either. It just feels like Heckerling’s comedy doesn’t have the same bite and is of a past era. A big part of the gag here is that Silverstone is very old timey and out of place in the modern world but the film itself just kind of feels a bit like that. Its a 90s comedy made in the 2010s. That doesn’t make it bad or anything. And truthfully the comedies of the 2010s tend to have a lot more problems. But it does feel like the familiar feeling of a director who’s time has passed and feels just a little out of touch. Still its cute and I really needed a harmless palette cleanser. I wouldn’t tell anyone to go out of their way to see it but like if the idea and players interest you then sure, its an amusing little comedy. Basebf555 posted:
  8 (10). Red (2008) Directed by Trygve Allister Diesen and Lucky McKee; Screenplay by Stephen Susco; Based on Red by Jack Ketchum Watched on Amazon Prime A man seeks justice on the people who senselessly killed his dog who was the final gift from his deceased wife. Bryan Cox is John Wick. Well, its John Wick if Wick was a sort of reasonable senior citizen who attempted every avenue besides violence first. Truthfully this isn’t a horror and its barely much of a thriller. Its largely a very sad melodrama about an old man struggling to find some sense and justice after more tragedy than most can endure. We spend the majority of the run time watching him do his best to get something out of this. First going directly to the parents of the culprits hoping to simply get an apology and acknowledgement that something will be done. Then turning to the police and law only to find out a dead dog isn’t worth that much. Then turning to the media hoping to make a stink only to find out that the rich and powerful stink worse. And finally poo poo gets a little out of control. Cox is not a killer or assassin or deranged man who is mad as hell and can’t take it anymore. He’s a sad, heartbroken man who’s true tragedy and motivation slowly reveals itself. And who ultimately feels guilt that his inability to move on may have pushed all of this too far and cost too much. I guess he’s like the exact opposite of John Wick. Cox is incredible of course. And the cast is loaded up with actors like Tom Sizemore, Robert England, Amanda Plummer, Richard Riehle, Kim Dickens, Ashley Laurence, Kyle Gallner, and Noel Fisher who help make this thing work. Its a really stellar cast. And with enough horror cred that I was hopefully it would be more horrory. But no, its just a really good and sad melodrama with a great cast pulling their weight. It does get thrillery eventually but that’s like late, late, late into the film. There’s some kind of production drama around this film. McKee - who adapted a Ketchum story previously with The Woman and later produced another in The Lost - was the original director on this but right as it was nearly done the filming went on hiatus for 6 months and when it came back McKee was gone. I find no clear information on what happened but frequent McKee collaborator Angela Bettis was apparently also fired and replaced by Dickens. So it would see there’s possibly another version of this film that was conceived and even partially made. And given McKee’s pedigree, other work with Ketchum, and cast filled with horror regulars there was a more hard edged horror/thriller version of this more along the lines of what I expect from a Ketchum story. Still, what we get is a very sad and good story thanks to the great cast especially Cox. It does have a bit of a TV movie quality to it and it just feels like it spends a long time being reasonable before things get unreasonable. Maybe too long? I’m not sure. Its not the movie I expected and its not a great movie. But its an effective movie for what it is. Its hard not to be with all the talent involved.  9 (11). Malum (2023) Directed by Anthony DiBlasi; Written by Anthony DiBlasi and Scott Poiley; Based on Last Shift by Anthony DiBlasi and Scott Poiley Watched on Starz I've seen Last Shift but it didn't leave much impression on me. I liked the basic premise and elements. I dig haunted house stuff, like it when you put those horror ideas in urban environments like an empty police station, and dig creepy cult stuff. But as a whole the film just didn't leave a mark on me. So I had no real feelings about it being remade like most seem to. In fact I was probably partially interested to see if it could hit a little more on a second go. I don't mind remakes. Its taking a second shot. Doesn't harm the first, just seeing if you can do something better or different. A little odd when its the same guy doing it but hey, who hasn't wanted a second shot? But its still is kind of lesser than the sum of its parts I think. It looks good and there's plenty of interesting elements and effective jump scares and gore. And its a fine enough film that keeps moving and doesn't wear out its welcome beyond 90 minutes. And its story feels like it walks the line between explaining enough to get a picture of what's happening and still being weird enough to not really know what happened. Which is a good balance if you can find it. Just enough to not feel completely lost but still senseless enough to be freaky. But I dunno. It just doesn't ever really come together for me. Much like the first time it feels like its just missing something to make it a complete story. And like I had hoped that remaking the film 10 years later would mean they had figured something out. But nah. I guess its whatever. Sometimes an idea just won't go away but won't grow either. Not a bad watch or anything. A perfectly solid 90 minute spookfest. And to be honest it was the first true supernatural horror I had seen after a few genre side swipes and misses so I was enjoying it for that. But it doesn't really make itself exceptional in any way, I don't think. Even on the second go.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2023 04:35
|
|
|
A True Jar Jar Fan posted:I'm way behind
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2023 05:04
|
|
|
moths posted:I don't want to poo poo up this thread with analysis, but I think it's more a story about belief in self. The cultists surrender their autonomy to the cult and fail, Thomas Jane's group gives up and fails. The only winner is the woman who said gently caress what everybody says, I'm saving my kids. Yeah “trust the system” doesn’t much apply when you explicitly have a subplot of the military causing all this. Plus you’ve got a third group between the cultists and Thomas James rebels. The skeptics who much more represent “conformists” or someone trusting the status quo. Basebf555 posted:Usually when non-horror stuff comes up in October I just push it to November and then I have a whole bunch of good stuff waiting for me when October ends. Helps with the post-Halloween depression. Live Sports complicates things but yeah, everything else becomes a backlog that builds up its own anticipation for November. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Oct 4, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
Danielle Harris. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2023 22:48
|
|
|
 10 (12). The Visitor (1979) Directed by Giulio Paradisi (as Michael J. Paradise); Screenplay by Luciano Comici and Robert Mundi; Story by Giulio Paradisi and Ovidio G. Assonitis Watched on AMC+ I think this was about Satan. Alien Satan. And a cult of satanists who have to be stopped by Alien Jesus’ apostle Obi Wan Kenobi. And Lance Henriksen selling his soul to create the antichrist so his basketball team can win. Yeah, he seems as confused making this film as I was watching it. I had a knee jerk cringe when the film started because I have absolutely no taste for that sci fi habit of taking well worn moral and ethical subjects and going “but what if aliens/robits?” But its not that kind of film really. I’m not sure this film has anything to say and if it did it was lost in the weirdness. This is a different kind of common film of the era, the Italian knockoff film. And like some its not content just being Alien Omen its also Rosemary’s Baby and the Bad Seed and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and The Birds? There’s probably like a dozen different films you could say this movie… borrows… from and you’d probably be right. Its a mess of swiped ideas and weirdo 70s sci fi aesthetics. Which is probably a draw to some but definitely not me. I dunno. A film made for another audience doing things in a way other people enjoy I guess. I was just bored and confused for the most part.  11 (13). The Night Caller (1998) Directed by Robert Malenfant; Written by Mark Bomback, George Saunders, and Frank Rehwaldt Watched on Youtube That one bedroom drawer with a folded up flag and a bunch of guns sure is ‘Merica. A solid film. Feels familiar to a lot of other movies. Many say Psycho but I was actually thinking of Lucky McKee’s May. But its really pretty different from both of those, they just share a main character who is dangerously disturbed and socially awkward and sometimes blurs the line. Tracy Nelson is good in that role managing to both play the soft spoken introvert who you want to root for and the dangerous obsessed psycho. I think the main flaw of the film is that the writing doesn’t feel like it does anything quite clever enough to match those other films’ stories or to really make Nelson’s performance shine. She’s demure and awkward and insecure and then she’s dangerous and angry. The script doesn’t put a ton of meat in there between the two. The core premise that she gets a boost of confidence from a radio therapist delivering some platitudes and basically sound advice that maybe she should know more about the situation to fully commit to carries most of the weight here. And its a fine enough premise but it also kind of just exists to start. I was expecting Beth to spend the entire film calling in with some mixed communication between them as she becomes more obsessed and the doc starts to get the bigger picture. But things just kind of jump right into her just going on a killing spree and full on stalker. Which is fine but there’s not a lot of nuance there. Nelson carries the performance well but she’s not working with a ton beyond just being real kill happy. The film’s got a general TV Movie vibe to it but I can’t find any evidence confirming it is or isn’t one. It feels like one. And that would explain some of the lack of punch in the script or some of the story turns. Still the cast does a good job and we get a pretty decent story of obsession and misplaced confidence. You could even probably argue its kind of a proto story of para-social relationships and the way people attack to public figures who kind of don’t know they exist. But again the film doesn’t really work that angle near as much I would have liked it to instead going to a more straight up thing. I try not to judge film for what I thought it would be but just for what it is. And its a perfectly enjoyable movie. But I admit I keep hanging onto the idea that I feel like it probably could have done a little more with some more nuance and playing on that idea of the para social relationship obsession and a cat and mouse with the shrink. But it is what it is. And its pretty good.  12 (14). Smoke and Mirrors: The Story of Tom Savini (2015) Directed by Jason Baker A solid if kind of dry documentary. Smoke and Mirrors is less of a doc about Savini's career than one about his life. So its not a ton of footage and rehashing of famous movies or anything but rather a lot of personal stories from Savini himself and big names in horror talking about how much they love him. If you got multiple people calling you their best friend you're probably a pretty alright person. And he comes off that way. Not a perfect guy and with his share of struggles and regrets. But one who seems to be doing his best and has ended up in a good place. I was amused by the fact that the narrative basically makes his career peak as Sex Machine. I was surprised though to find out that was mostly true since he quasi retired soon after first out of a need to devote himself to being a father and then because his hands no longer allowed him to do the special effects work he's so famous for. That's a sad reveal for sure, but its interesting to know that its not really his first love or anything but was a means into the industry and to be an actor. And really the main vibe you get is that he's just a filmmaker in the end. A magician. An actor. An effects guy. A director. A teacher. Just someone everyone seems to be able to rely on and want around to help make work more enjoyable. It even kind of made me want to go to a horror convention to see him screwing around with guys like Tony Todd and Sid Haig. RIP, Sid. But Savini seems like a decent guy who's contributions to the industry are not only appreciated within it but probably underappreciated from what we tend to think of him as. It probably could have been a cleaner or punchier documentary but its a solid story about an interesting guy told largely by himself.   13 (15). Older than America (2006) Directed by Georgina Lightning; Written by Georgina Lightning and Christine K. Walker Watched on Amazon Prime Its really on the nose that someone renamed this American Evil and pasted the one white supporting character on the poster. A pretty solid story about a piece of American (and Canadian history) that isn’t often talked about but continues to become more and more newsworthy all the time as more evidence and patterns of the abusers present themselves. Its nice to see such a heavy First Nations collection of filmmakers and everyone’s doing a good job. The one boyfriend character is kind of overly friendly but I’m chalking that up as a character choice. The multiple stories play well enough together with our main focus on the personal story of Lightning’s discovery of the secrets of her family, the reservation politicians revealing the systematic abuses and secrets, and Bradley Cooper’s kind of side quest of… I’m not sure what his role is to be honest. I guess he’s just there to add a kind of air of spooky spiritual foreboding and the sense that all of this fits together? I dunno. Apparently important enough for that poster once he became a famous Raccoon. And other roles. But either way it all kind of works well together and like when Cooper just kind of disappears from the narrative its not a big deal because his role is pretty done. And this was never really his story anyway. It all comes together pretty well as the whole community’s story and resolution. Its not super horrory but its got ghosts and horrible secrets and thrilling danger so its close enough. Its not a great film or anything but it gets a lot of points for what its trying to do and how well it does it. Its not overly preachy or wooden in its delivery. It works the themes and facts together well with its narrative. The moments that are blunt resonate like when the one older tribal member says that there two ways to commit genocide - kill everyone or strip them of their identity. And America did its fair shot of both with the First Nations no doubt. And the Catholic Church covered up as they tend to do. Lower membership may not be the same as ghostly karma but its what we have in this world. But I digress. A solid and touching film who’s strengths outweigh its weaknesses. And a perspective we don’t hear a lot from in horror or otherwise. Basebf555 posted:
 14 (16). The Boogeyman (2023) Directed by Rob Savage; Screenplay by Scott Beck, Bryan Woods, and Mark Heyman; Based on "The Boogeyman" by Stephen King A very solid spook-a-doodle. Maybe not breaking a ton of new ground. It stays largely faithful to King's story but its gotta expand a bit to make it a feature length film. The setups can all feel maybe a bit overly familiar but they work I think. The monster is good, jump scares are used effectively, and Sophie Thatcher is a very good lead. Yet another reason I should get around to watching Yellowjackets. Its not really reinventing the wheel here and your mileage may vary based on how much you enjoy or are bothered by the familiar. But I thought it was just a very solid spooky story as is evidenced by my ultimate test of having to turn some lights on when it was done. Not a lot... but some. You know... just a little. Speaking of this family really needs to invest in some flashlights or lanterns or something. Its 2023, guys. Line your place with LED poo poo. I liked it. I'm also a Stephen King fanboy. This isn't the same moody tight short story as King's original but its a very effective spooky tale from one of the most successful spooky storytellers. And with King very often simple is better. And make no mistake, this is simple. If you're bothered by that or the type who gets upset by a "generic" horror film then go ahead and skip this. But if you're just looking to turn the lights off and spook yourself a little and not be ashamed to jump at the jump scares? It worked for me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2023 05:57
|
|
|
 - (17). Demons 2 (1986) Directed by Lamberto Bava; Screenplay by Dario Argento, Lamberto Bava, Franco Ferrini, Dardano Sacchetti, and Sergio Stivaletti Watched on Shudder Not as good as the first one but still a lot of the same kind of fun and stuff. I’m not even usually the audience for this kind of movie. I don’t much like Italian horror and gore only does so much for me and I prefer story and character to chaotic randomness. But when it works it works. Usually I would have watched the first film before this. I almost never skip one. But I’ve seen that one a bunch including about half of it I randomly caught on some channel like a week ago. And I knew it was largely a stand alone although I do respect the work to make them connect and love seeing the whole “something completely mild alteringly horrible and amazing happened years ago and now we’ve mostly pushed it out of our minds and gone into a cultural denial and turned it into pop culture” thing. I hope that horror fans are finally done complaining how “unrealistic” it is that people would just deny what happened and go into denial now that we’ve lived through people doing that in real time to extreme degrees. Hell we’re living through huge swaths of America trying to memory hole slavery and racism. Again. One demon outburst in one city? That’s nothing. Fake news. I probably will watch the first film sometime this month, maybe closer to Halloween. I do think its the better film. its not that its necessarily a deeper story or characters or anything but I just think it works a bit better. Still this works. Its simple in its core construction but gives everything in its execution. Parking lots full of gym heads preparing for war? Terrifying doggie demon transformation? A puppet? How could I not like a movie with an extended demon puppet chase and fight? I love puppets. Even evil ugly demon ones. And its some drat good puppetry. Everything the film sets out to do it does well. I can’t really hold story or plot against it because that’s not what its trying to do. Its trying to create a wild rear end demon time with tons of gore and effects and chaos and poo poo and it delivers and then some. Years back I even thought about doing the entire run of unofficial sequels but never got past the “third” film The Church and got lost in the mess of Italian knockoffs and incomprehensible franchise histories. But now I’m thinking of doing that too. I think the movies were the very first list I made on Letterboxd. I have a lot on my plate this October but this is how you make a fun marathon. Leave room for the fun paths you find yourself on. Sure I’ve only watched one of these and I skipped the first one for now but I’m feeling it so I might just go ahead and look up that list and add all those films to my list. What’s a few more for my crazy long list during my favorite crazy rear end month? 🔗😈 Six Degrees of Demons 👿🔗  15 (18). Night of the Demons 2 (1994) Directed by Brian Trenchard-Smith; Written by Joe Augustyn and James Penzi Fun fact, I actually had this movie confused with Demons 2 for my HalloweeNIT challenge. I do that. I’m looking at you “accidently watched The Beyond instead of From Beyond” and my very traumatic “accidently watched The Last House on the Left instead of the Hills Have Eyes” incident. But I had planned to watch the Night of Demons movies and already had started my month with the first one before I realized my mistake so why not just follow through? And for laughs double feature it with its doppelgänger. Anyway… not bad. Still fun. Still that Evil Dead energy the first one went for, this one going a little harder I think into it? I’m not sure how I feel really. There’s more story and character here. Its not exactly good story or character but I appreciate the effort. I also appreciate that they tried to make something a bit different. Its not just a bunch of kids going to an old house and the same thing happening. I mean it is, but there’s more there. And the more there is kind of fun. I mean the Rambo Nun is a very fun concept at least. Tonally I’m not sure this ever quite landed that ED comedy/horror blend that it was going for. Its there and you can see it and its even mostly amusing but it just doesn’t quite play as smoothly or well as you can tell they’re trying for. Still its not a bad watch by any means. Maybe not quite as good as the first. Trying to do more maybe proves less effective than the simplicity of the first one? Not sure. But still its a decently fun watch and different enough from the first to not feel too redundant while similar enough to give you what you came for from the first one. And good enough that I’m still in for the third film.  16 (19). The Angry Black Girl and Her Monster (2023) Written and directed by Bomani J. Story; Based on Frankenstein by Mary Shelley Watched on Shudder God drat that was good. So drat good. So so drat good. I was all hyped up to watch it. Frankenstein with the black urban twist? So my thing. And it 100% delivered. So, so my thing. A great great interpretation of the classic story that basically started modern horror. There’s been so many Frankenstein movies over the years because it really is the birth of horror. So like its hard to make one stand out and there’s plenty that have tried and gone real wrong. But this one kills it and gives a completely different vibe to it. What I really loved was the way they kind of flip the motivation of mad scientist here. Frankenstein was just a rich arrogant dude who wanted to prove he was a god. He didn’t think about the consequences or morals because he didn’t care. It was all about his ego and proving he could do it. Vicaria clearly has a touch of that and Laya DeLeon Hayes does a tremendous job with those moments of mad scientist under her glasses. But her motivations are entirely different. She’s doing what she’s doing out of love and grief. Trying to heal her family and prevent more pain and suffering. And the reality that she’s living in this world where “death is cheap.” Where people are dying easy and trying to “cure death” is her way to try and cope. She’s not looking for fame or glory or the feeling of being a god like that aristocratic guy who started all this. She’s trying to survive and heal. And making a really bad mistake. That big focus on her suffering and her family is really the heart of this. We spend a lot less time with the monster than we do with her, and that really works. Especially with the ending. My heart was in my throat for the entire last act of this. The worry of how this could all go so badly just was so thick in the atmosphere. The film does such a good job of giving that weight too. Life is often cheap in horror. Most horror films kill people left and right and few of those deaths resonate in any meaningful way. But this film made me desperate to not see people die. To not see more people in Vicaria’s life get infected with death. Frankenstein is about creating life from death but this film really does nail the flip side of that of making it about the fear of losing life. I dunno, I want to say more about this because I absolutely loved it but I find it hard to find the words. It was just so drat good. Easily the best movie so far of October for me and the best new horror I’ve seen in awhile. Really a huge, huge fan and highly recommend it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2023 08:43
|
|
|
 - (20). House on Haunted Hill (1959) Directed by William Castle; Written by Robb White Watched on TMC My planned film fell through and I was doing some chores and working on decorations so didn’t want to get into anything new or good and was paralyzed with indecision. But I had recorded this the other day off of TCM so it was sitting right at the top of my DVR so i popped it on. Always good to get some Vincent Price in October to help really get the mood going. And this is always an easy good watch. Its scares don’t really hold up and play kind of goofy. But Price is great, so is Carol Ohmart. There’s a good vibe and sense of tension in their interactions. That dangerous game they’ve been playing for some time of wanting each other gone and seeming willing to make it happen. And that classic idea of throwing a birthday party in a haunted house with a bunch of complete strangers and locking the doors and giving everyone a gun. You know the deal. We’ve all been there. Its a classic and many of its ideas of have been reused in arguably better ways. But there’s something about it that just still works. Despite its flaws or parts that don’t age great. There’s just something that does work. Its just good clean murderous Spooky Season fun.  - (21). Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings (1994) Directed by Jeff Burr; Written by Constantine Chachornia and Ivan Chachornia Ami Dolenz, Punky Brewster, and some teenage idiots act like terrible people so now Pumpkinhead has to kill people again. At least that part’s consistent. I know I’ve seen this before if just because those are two of my biggest childhood crushes in there. And because I remember it sucking bad in that way 90s horror sequels sucked. Just kind of doing the same thing over again at its best, just doing it a bit worse. Feeling painfully of its time. Pumpkinhead is a great monster design but it kind of feels like we see a bit too much of him here. The movie is generally better looking than the first but I don’t think that benefits it. The first film really works in its grittiness and this one just feels a bit too clean. Its also just not that good. I think we’re missing someone to latch onto. The first film has the stupid teenagers too but half of them aren’t complete assholes and there’s Lance Henriksen killing it as the father fighting with grief and guilt. We don’t have anything near him here. They kind of try and keep Ami Dolenz’s character clean by having her walk away from the demonic ritual the teens randomly decide to do and insist on treating the old witch lady like a human being. But she’s way too into her psycho boyfriend. He’s just the worst and at best she come off really dumb and just kind of too into the bad boy while there’s a murdering monster running around. Her dad is I guess supposed to be the audience surrogate but Andrew Robinson plays a better sleaze ball than hero and he’s just kind of a poorly written character. Like did he need have a flashback about being kind of Pumpkinhead? That’s just gratuitous and it doesn’t work. He could have just been a concerned dad and good cop. Having him space out while reciting Pumpkinhead poems is just kind of weird and makes him feel like weird character. Ultimately this just isn’t very good. What it does well it does worse than the original one and the rest is just very familiarly bad generic 90s horror stuff. I guess I’m still gonna watch the last two but I’m in no rush. This is the one thy spent some money on. Not looking forward to those two TV films although at least Henriksen is back for those ones. As Pumpkinhead? Why the hell is this Pumpkinhead the son of Pumpkinhead anyway? What’s with this film’s lore? Its all very not good and very unnecessary. I’ve always thought Pumpkinhead was an underrated movie/monster that deserved more than it got. But if this is what you got for a sequel I guess I get it.  17 (22). Flight 7500 (2014) Directed by Takashi Shimizu; Written by Craig Rosenberg A very slow trip nowhere. At only 80 minutes you’d hope to say “at least it was short” but it felt so long. The first half hour is all just kind a LOT of character introduction and nothing meaningful happening except for a bad plane flight. I like character setup and all that but this was a lot and I find myself really impatiently waiting for the movies premise to kick in or even give a clue of what it is. It doesn’t help that these aren’t terribly deep characters and the cast… while very recognizable… isn’t exactly stellar. Its a weird cast I guess. Nearly everyone is recognizable for some reason and I wouldn’t call any of them bad actors. But there’s only so much Turtle from Entourage and the idiot brother from True Blood are gonna do to elevate you character heavy story. Sorry guys. You all did fine with what you were given but you weren’t given a lot and none of us are deluding ourselves are we? Anyway, the bigger problem is that once something happens… and then doesn’t matter… it took me about a minute to guess what the mystery was about 5 minutes for the movie to confirm it. And then it was a long slow slog of more and more clues for the same answer being laid out there as the characters all experience existential epiphanies. This is why I don’t try and guess mysteries in movies or books. Once you get the answer you’re just waiting for everyone else to catch up. And its a long, long wait for everyone to catch up. And then once they do its not a terribly dramatic or powerful moment. And it just kind of gets dragged out some more. And then we’re done. Finally. Not scary, not tense, not very well acted or written or directed, and a pretty lame predictable mystery that really doesn’t have much depth going for it. Its watchable and made competently enough but its just a boring rear end movie. I wasn’t expecting something good but I was really hoping for some plane ghosts.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2023 05:59
|
|
|
 - (23). Creep (2014) Directed by Patrick Brice; Story by Patrick Brice and Mark Duplass Watched on Netflix Its probably been close to 10 years since I saw this so an interesting thing to revisit and one I really didn’t mind fitting in at all. And Mark Duplass is still a very effective creep. poo poo is weird and there’s a great atmosphere of “what did I get myself into?” and “how the gently caress do I get out of this situation?” And the found footage format works well to bring you along with our victim in the first person perspective and roughly realtime story. As he just goes on this weird job and ignores any bad vibes he might have got sketched out by for the money and then is too far in to turn back as more and more this seems like a real bad idea and the red flags keep piling up. I feel like it loses steam in the last act though. It also doesn’t help that by taking the story away from the panicked trapped situation of the first hour and into a more prolonged stalker situation we lose some of the tension and I dare say sympathy for our guy. Like I dunno, man. I get taking the job for money and being trapped and all but you really shouldn’t still be feeling sympathy for this guy, man. I don’t want to victim blame or anything but c’mon, on man. Make better decisions. And again, the lost first person perspective probably doesn’t help either. We’re no longer experiencing this with the guy, we’re now watching him react to the situation. So now like it feels like we’re judging him a bit more. Or maybe that’s just me. I dunno,. This certainly might be a case where knowing how the story goes takes away some of the tension and turns up some nitpicking or analysis of it. Some movies definitely just don’t hold up quite as well on a second watch as they do the first and I think this might have been the case here. Its not bad or anything. As said Duplass is still incredibly uncomfortable and scary and there’s still a ton of tension and first person dread. That last act just feel a little flat for me this time. Probably in part because I knew where it was going so I was just judging the choices that got us there. The story works best when its one questionable choice that puts him in a situation he can’t really escape from rather then a bunch of questionable choices spelling out how we get to the final destination. Still a solid watch and even if I didn’t love the final act its not bad or anything. Just not quite as good as I remember it being the first time. But ain’t that always the way?  - (24). Pet Sematary (1989) Directed by Mary Lambert; Screenplay by Stephen King; Based on Pet Sematary by Stephen King Watched on Max. For a very long time Pet Sematary was one of my favorite horror films and I’d give it a watch any time it came on. But as I got older I found it harder and harder to watch for the really hard going tragedy of the story. If you’ve seen it you know what I’m talking about and if you haven’t seen it I’ll just say that its some of the roughest child harm and family heartbreak I’ve seen in any horror. So its been a long time since I’ve watched this. Probably over 10 years. I considered using it for the childhood trauma challenge but really its the opposite. As I’ve developed more and more adult empathy the trauma came more and more. But with the new Pet Sematary movie coming out it gave me an excuse to go through all the movies and revisit this old favorite/trauma. And it still goes so hard. I’d call this a Top 5 King Adaption as long as you’re not counting the non horrors. King adaptions get a bad wrap since there’s so many of them so there’s plenty of mediocre or bad ones. But there’s also plenty of really good ones and I’d say this is one of the best. King writing the screenplay probably helps and he’s able to kind of condense his story without losing a lot. Its always been said amongst big King fans how the Wendigo is cut from this one but its interesting watching how he’s not really cut, he’s just not shown or mentioned. But there’s that supernatural evil presence all along and at one point someone outright says “he’s trying to stop you.” The classic King story element of an evil magic force pulling strings and manipulating the situation to cause misery and chaos is still there, the movie just kind of downplays it and lets you focus on the family trauma. And so much trauma. Still such a hard watch. I was in tears more than once and honestly if I had been watching alone I’m not sure I would have gotten through it in one sitting. This is why I’ve avoided it for so long. Its just such a brutal story of not only loss but also the pain and heartbreak of a child. I think the daughter character is kind of overlooked as just this brutal one. Again, she’s kind of downplayed in a lot of ways but you could see this whole extra plot where she’s got that classic King story kid shining power talking to spirits and having premonition dreams. And she just goes through the whole movie suffering the brutality of a child first learning about death in just the worst ways imaginable. Its loving brutal to watch and you can almost understand how people make the choices they do to avoid this pain. As with so many King stories the main character feels in many ways like a self insert. King too was a teacher who lived near a dangerous highway whose daughter’s cat was hit by a truck. And you can really see how the man’s imagination, fears of his children being in danger, and guilt of not being a good enough dad and protector shape this story. There’s a very effective little subtle element in here where the dad kind of isn’t the best at a lot of things. He’s not a bad guy but he’s not great about comforting his kid or communicating with his wife and… well… watching the baby. He’s not abusive or neglectful but you see a bunch of little moments. And you can really see from how that is born the guilt and… lets call it overcompensation… that leads to him doing what he does. Unable to protect his family from death and pain over and over he just loses it more and more and makes these fateful terrible decisions. Its brutal to watch and as in many other King stories you can see his own guilt and anxieties shining through. I could probably go on and on since as I said this is one of my favorite King stories and adaptions and its been so long since I’ve engaged with it. Because it goes so hard and hits so well. A killer King adaption and heartbreaking story that doesn’t sacrifice ANY horror or creepiness. This one has it all and its in a tight package. And it feels notable that King wrote this screenplay since so often the King haters point out that a number of his best adaptions are significantly changed by their big time directors. But here we’ve got King writing his own script and Mary Lambert who hasn’t had a ton of luck outside of this movie. And they just hit it out of the park with out any of the common King handicaps or pitfalls. Just a great movie that I will not be watching again for another long while.  -. A Creepshow Animated Special (2020); Directed by Greg Nicotero; Written by Greg Nicotero and Melanie Dale; Based on Survivor Type by Stephen King and Twitterings from the Circus of the Dead by Joe Hill; Watched on Shudder Under an hour so doesn't count. But I watched and reviewed. Really enjoyed that. Wasn’t sure I was gonna when I saw it was not only animated but that kind still image animation. Not a fan really. But I actually got the hang of that pretty quickly and enjoyed it. I watched this in part because I just want to complete the Letterboxd Collection, in part because I wanna go through the Creepshow series while I have Shudder this month, and partly because I just needed a cool down from the intensity of Pet Sematary and didn’t want something long since I was being lazy and putting off adult things and hey… follow King with King. And King Jr. Anyway, I really enjoyed it! Both stories were really very good and Kiefer Sutherland and Joey King do a good job voicing them. The King Survivor story is one you kind of know where its going after awhile but the narrative of the guy just kind of rationalizing it and losing his mind is really good. A lot of King adaptions struggle from the fact that King so often writes in the first person so you either do a narrator or have to adapt all that into a more cinematic thing. So this seems like it benefits from just being able to go the first person narrator route and I assume take liberally from King’s writing. And as said Sutherland does a good job just reciting this dudes’ descent into the inevitable horror as he asks himself over and over again how badly he wants to live. Maybe too badly? Joe Hill’s Twitter zombie story is a fun one too. Again you kind of figure where its gonna all end up but its a fun ride there narrated pretty well by King. From the basically typical teenage brat who is just writing about how much she hates everything and how terrible her mom is to the live blogging of a zombie massacre. The whole Twitter thing is kind of a fun twist on the old found footage debate of “why do they keep filming?” I’ve never had a problem with that because as a former camera man I kind of know the weird sense watching the world through a camera lens gives you like you’re not quite a part of it. Like you’re standing behind a fourth wall your camera is creating. So the idea that people just panic and cope that way has always worked for me even when rarely verbalized that way. Here we’ve got a teenage girl who just keeps tweeting through her family vacation to try and survive that and cope with it. And then a show she expects to be bad and boring. And then a show she’s entertained and shocked and scared by. And then finally the actual survival. Not really a deliberate or direct play on the found footage thing but kind of a fun way to interpret it I thought. I dunno. Anyway yeah, I enjoyed these. Two very good stories. The animation may or may not break it for you but I vibe with it pretty quickly. And its nice and quick at about 20 minutes a piece. Really got me in the mood to go through the Creepshow series finally this month while I have Shudder. I always subscribe to Shudder in October and then usually think about doing Creepshow right at the end of it. I think I may have started the first episode like three times. But I’ll try and just fit episodes in between movies and while eating and stuff. When I’m not ready for a 90-120 minute movie but could use a nice 20 minute short or two. 🎃💀Halloween 2023: HooptoberX and HalloweeNIT💀🎃 Watched - New (Total) [i]- (1) Night of the Demons (1988); 1 (2). Night Terrors (1993); 2 (3). Nightbooks (2021); 3 (4). The Last Voyage of the Demeter (2023); 4 (5). Atomic Dog (1998); - Violence Jack: Harlem Bomber (1986); - (6). Pumpkinhead (1988); 5 (7). Bird Box (2018); 6 (8). Private House of the SS (1977); 7 (9). Vamps (2012); 8 (10). Red (2008); 9 (11). Malum (2023); 10 (12). The Visitor (1979); 11 (13). The Night Caller (1998); 12 (14). Smoke and Mirrors: The Story of Tom Savini (2015); 13 (15). Older than America (2006); 14 (16). The Boogeyman (2023); - (17). Demons 2 (1986); 15 (18). Night of the Demons 2 (1994); 16 (19). The Angry Black Girl and Her Monster (2023); - (20). House on Haunted Hill (1959); - (21). Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings (1994); 17 (22). Flight 7500 (2014); - (23). Creep (2014); - (24). Pet Sematary (1989); -. A Creepshow Animated Special (2020); 🎃 HooptoberX: 15/41 🎃 HalloweeNIT ‘23: 11/31 🎃 Basebf’s SA Challenges: 17/31 🎃 Completed Collections: 1
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2023 11:28
|
|
|
 - (25). Pet Sematary II (1992) Directed by Mary Lambert; Written by Richard Outten; Based on Pet Sematary by Stephen King Watched on Max Always kind of underrated to me, although it feels like these days the way people judge films around here it might be preferred by many to the first. Its a bit of a campier film than the first one although I don’t think its intentionally comedic or camp or anything. Its mostly the combination of Clancy Brown’s performance as the main villain and nothing quite as painful as the family triggedy in the first one. Like I feel bad Ed Furlong’s mom died. She seemed nice enough and all but its nothing remotely near the first one. And like a lot of horror sequels we ramp up the kills and stuff and zombie monsters so much that there’s some diminishing returns in it. Still, I think that basically works for it because it doesn’t feel like its trying to be the first film or top it or anything. It feels like its own thing and that’s pretty fun. Again a lot of that is owned to Brown who is just great in his role. What struck me is how well he plays this character from the start. Like as a dad and cop we see him not really being abusive or anything. The things he’s saying are basically fine. “Take care of your dog.” “Eat your vegetables.” “Turn off the TV during dinner.” But its how he says it. He’s a dick. And like you can tell there’s something uglier there and maybe even dangerous. And when he shoots at his kid’s dog its like “What the gently caress did you do?!” but also you’re not really surprised. Its there. You kind of know its there. And then when he goes all evil its just like all that unleashed. Its just a really good performance. Brown’s funny which I think is a lot of what gives this its camp feel, but he also really is scary and that starts from early on when that scariness is under the surface. Everyone else is fine I guess. Furlong is incredibly creepy in the end part but I never really attached with his story. There’s just kind of a lot going on here. And again I think that is the movie’s strength and weakness. Nothing really has the emotional punch or affect of death here but also that means instead of a movie that made me cry its just kind of a movie that I can have fun with zombies doing hosed up poo poo and having a good time.  18 (26). Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022) Directed by David Blue Garcia; Screenplay by Chris Thomas Devlin; Story by Fede Álvarez and Rodo Sayagues Watched on Netflix This film feels confused. If it had just been a straight up TCM sequel with the young people getting attacked that would have been fine I think. I mean the TCM sequels are all kind of bad so the bar is pretty low. But the problem right away is that the film is doing this overly cutesy thing with the young “woke” people coming to do some gentrification and disrespecting the simple southern folks. Its got this “intolerant left” vibe and while it never really feels like it ever makes a coherent argument its distasteful enough to put a stink on things. Like you get the sense the people writing this were just really amused by themselves. And it doesn’t even work as just a flourish because or set up because then you’ve got the dumb school shooter survivor thing. And here the film feels like it knows what its doing a bit more because it feels like its setting up the entire time for the traumatized shooting victim to pick up an assault weapon and save the day. And in that it feels like the film really is just trying to stick it to some people and prove a point. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a chainsaw is a good guy with a gun. That’s all distasteful but that’s not all the film has going against it. While I appreciate bringing John Larroquette back from the original and the rough idea of bringing Sally back (RIP Marilyn Burns) it doesn’t work at all because she’s just this very silly generic bad rear end hunting Leatherface. There’s nothing there and her character comes off almost like parody. The scene when she saves the sisters and they’re like “Go, lets go!” while she’s giving a monologue almost felt like comedy. I don’t think it was/ This film obviously was trying to be funny and cute with all that anti-woke stuff early on but by this point its just a full on slasher so I think Sally is just silly because she’s an ill conceived and shallowly crafted character. That’s it. This is all shallow and ill conceived. Again, I have a very low opinion of the TCM movies beyond Hooper’s first two so I wasn’t coming into this with big expectations. I actually binged the TCM franchise a few years back and never finished because I just got tired of them. So in some ways this is more of the same. But also its something kind of different and that something is stupid and kind of lovely. For generic streaming release horror sequels this is pretty middle of the road not too long and has some whatever gore and action. And for a TCM sequel it might not even be the worst and stupidest idea. I still don’t know what was going on with that McCoughenney one. But its not a good film and the best I can say about it is that its short enough that it was over before it got too tiresome and by the time I was ready to eat.  19 (27). Wendigo (2001) Written and directed by Larry Fessenden Watched on Youtube Not at all the monster movie I was expecting, but a very effective and moody tale of fear and trauma and tragedy. I’ve been a long admirer of Larry Fessenden and all he’s done for indie horror around the NY area. He’s low key a very important figure who most fans probably couldn’t name even if they might recognize him from one the many films he’s appeared in thanks to all the connections he has and people he’s helped. Which isn’t too say he isn’t a solid actor, but that’s neither here nor there since he’s not in this one. But I think this is actually the first film he directed that I’ve seen, which surprises me but he hasn’t actually made that many himself. At least not for how many he’s helped make. So i was pretty pumped to finally dig into him this October and HalloweeNIT became a perfect motivation even if it took me a week to get to it. And as I said, a really effective mood piece that pulls you in to one family’s really terrible vacation. But its not like one of those home invasion or TCM type horrors. Its not like a vacation turned to a nightmare of violence. Rather its a very slow and moody story about a chance encounter, a kind of bad experience with a shady stranger, some unsettling details and coincidences, and a very real sense of dread. Imagine Cape Fear but instead of a bad guy with a real grudge against you it was just some jerk who got mad at you in traffic and instead of him overtly stalking you and your family he just kind is around just enough to make you wonder if this place is really that small or not. The titular Wendigo is present and seen a fair bit but whether he even exists as creature that preys on suffering, a being that creates it, or simply a story a child believes to make sense of something senseless is very much open for interpretation. The Wendigo is an interesting horror creature in that sense as it plays in a lot of different ways. From a cannibalistic spirit that infects those who partake and leaves them eternally hungry. To a spirit of the forest eternally hungry himself. To a being that creates evil and suffering to seemingly feed off that. There’s a lot of ways it goes and its appropriate I watched this during my Pet Sematary marathon since he’s there as the very familiar King evil being influencing things. And here he’s somewhere in the middle there I guess. Its not very clear and deliberately so. And effectively since you’re drawn much more into the family drama which is the real movie. Its ending is abruptly harsh but I’m pretty sure also deliberately so. It leaves the viewer very unsatisfied and in a messed up place but again… I’m pretty sure that was the intent. Its well done although admittedly its something I love. Not because its bad but because it made me feel bad. But that’s pretty effectively done. A bummer for sure but an effective and very well made one.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2023 03:10
|
|
|
 - (28). Pet Sematary (2019) Directed by Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer; Screenplay by Jeff Buhler; Story by Matt Greenberg; Based on Pet Sematary by Stephen King Watched on Paramount+ I don’t think this is great or as good as the original but I think its a totally solid horror and don’t get the hate. Most of it always seems exaggerated or distorted. Someone gets mad that its a rehash when it changes like the entire back half of the movie. Someone gets mad that it isn’t faithful enough because it changed so much. Someone complains its too long when its barely over 90 minutes. Jump scares. Child actors. Family feelings. Slow burn. I just don’t connect with these strings of complaints you hear from so many about “modern horror.” Again, I don’t think its great or anything but I think its a perfectly good watch. At 100 minutes still pretty crisp by modern standards. Familiar enough to recognize from the original but also incorporating elements of the book that were left out and making one key change that at the time feels like a simple misdirection but actually plays out to create an entirely different story. And I dig that. A remake should do something different and unique to stay interesting and Pet Sematary absolutely does. It might be a bit too cute about its misdirects on changes from the original. There’s more than a few moments where it seems like the film really wants to go “fooled ya!” Of course I just watched the original two days ago so I was primed for that stuff (although I’d seen this before so I mostly knew which were real and which weren’t). But even if maybe I would tone that down a bit I really do appreciate the detour down a different road and interesting element that provides for the old way of one wind could change things. Of course its a change from nightmarish tragedy to nightmarish tragedy. But this is one hell of a nightmare in the end. While I do think the final act is maybe a little less punchy than the first its also fully moving and engaging and horrific. The zombie toddler of the first one is forever burned into my soul as one the creepiest things I’d seen at a young age but going the route they do for a more engaged zombie child is an interesting, heartbreaking, and maybe not equally but still pretty creepy choice. Its hard to say much about it without just spoiling stuff and I do think the strength here is in someone who has seen the first film discovering the new path they’re on. But suffice it to say while I don’t think this is a great film, I wouldn’t call it a great King adaption, I’d probably call it the worst of the three Pet Sematary films to its date… I still think its a very solid horror. I probably won’t be rewatching it anytime soon unless they make yet another sequel next year. But I didn’t mind the revisit one bit. Time for some Svengoolie to make the Spooky Season more full!   - (29). Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1988) Directed by Stephen Chiodo; Written by Charles Chiodo and Stephen Chiodo Watched on Svengoolie The clowns really devoted a lot of resources to capturing Debbie. Not that I blame them. That’s a girl worth invading a clown spaceship to save. One of my favorites and I usually turn to it at some time in October when I need a palette cleanser or pick me up or just something on in the background while I work or wake up. This time Svengoolie brought it on for me and I was indeed feeling crummy and could use the pick me up. Unfortunately I was feeling so crummy I dozed off in the middle of the film and had to try again today when I was feeling better, but that’s ok. Killer Klowns is comfort horror to me through and through. I have no idea if its perfect or not but it gets my full five stars anyway. You could nitpick it if you want. Its story is whatever and kind of familiar to the Blob. But why would you want to nitpick this? Why not just revel in the clown makeup and puppets? In the endless supply of clown gags they come up being sure not to miss a single one you can think of. Enjoy the goofy corny humor and characters including a random rear end cameo from one of my favorite early 2000s comedians Christopher Titus. Remember that they repurposed the clown costumes to make trolls for Ernest Scared Stupid and plan a rewatch of that. Amaze at the perfect combination of stuff you love just happening to come together as if made for you. Remember that you first experienced this because you were highly amused by the cover art in a Suncoast Video. Or just enjoy Svengoolie’s goofy jokes. Svengoolie and Killer Klowns. The fact that it couldn’t pull me out of my funk last night really speaks to how bad I was feeling. But on a better day I enjoyed it as I always do. And I will the next time I watch it be next October or whenever the universe gives me an excuse.  - (30). The Crawling Eye (1958) Directed by Quentin Lawrence; Screenplay by Jimmy Sangster; Story by Peter Key; Based on The Trollenberg Terror 1956 TV series Watched on Svengoolie ”Cute little things aren’t they?” “Yeah. I’m gonna go throw a bomb at it.” That’s why you invite an American to your alien invasion. I’ve seen this but didn’t really remember a thing about it. That’s not a surprise since not a lot happens. In fact reading my review from a couple of years ago when I first saw it its basically the same thing. I even said I had to rewind the first part of the film because I felt like I must have missed something but didn’t, and I did that again this time too! Granted that’s something I’ll do if I feel like I got distracted and feel a little lost but still. The same reaction two times. But actually I think I enjoyed it more this time, or at least more than my review would suggest. At the very least I’m going up half a star in my grade. Its still pretty slow and holds back a lot to the end. Although there’s a bit more going on than I remembered. Its still not great or all that exciting but once I settled in and just watched I actually largely found myself engaged. The film does a better job than a lot of the horror/sci-fi of the time at making the meat of the film interesting before you get to the big stuff. And I can further see a lot of influence in future films here. There’s a lot of very solid ideas and I imagine they came together into a very solid, maybe even impactful film for the time. Now its slow and not nearly as much happens as should. Nor are the character that strongly developed. And the plot is a bit clinical in its presentation for the first half. But you know, it is what it is and its not half bad. Its maybe only half good. But for the back half of a Svengoolie double feature it held up well enough without making me want to tap out like i feared.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2023 05:51
|
|
|
 20 (31). Dr. Terror’s House of Horrors (1965) Directed by Freddie Francis; Written by Milton Subotsky I got my first Vincent Price in a couple of days ago so seems only right to get my first Cushing too. I think I got Lee earlier. But 2 out of 3 in an old school UK anthology is a good spooky season time in my book. And I get some bunch Donald Sutherland. And it helps that knocked off a bunch of challenges for me. This isn’t really anything special though. I spent the whole film going “its ok, wait until we get to the Lee and Sutherland bits” but they’re nothing special either. They’re not bad or anything. All the usual subjects are here delivering the usual basic charm. They’ve done this kind of thing before and they know how to do it. Throw a bunch of jerks into a room, have someone ham it up as a creepy host, have some fun telling some stories, and then stick it to them. They ain’t breaking the mold but you know what you get every time. And there’s some fun in the segments for sure. The singer who is just a total culturally insensitive rear end. Lee hamming it up as the snooty art critic. The corny silliness of the Sutherland story ending. I particularly enjoyed the idea that the one guy had some pain in the rear end vines that were tough to kill and he went to the Ministry of Defense about it. And they took him up on it. Think they’ll help me clear out my yard? I swear that mint will attack you too and I can’t cut through this poo poo either. All in all its very corny and familiar but that’s kind of what it has going for it. Its just that easy Hammer/Amicus vibe that feels right for the season. This one isn’t going on the favorites list or anything but if some friend wanted me to watch it again I probably wouldn’t mind. Basebf555 posted:
 21 (32). Pet Sematary: Bloodlines (2023) Directed by Lindsey Anderson Beer; Written by Lindsey Anderson Beer and Jeff Buhlerl Based on Pet Sematary by Stephen King Watched on Paramount+ I wanted to like this, I really did. I love King, I like the Pet Sematary series, I thought the remake was fine, and I generally just don’t vibe with the harsh way so many judge new mainstream films, especially streaming ones. Like if you don’t like that kind of film just don’t watch it. You don’t have to just because its new and available. So I came in very very willing to be a contrarian but to be honest at best this film feels half cooked. There’s simultaneously too much going on and not enough. The characters feel poorly developed and there’s too many of them and too many strings that just don’t get proper development. Like off the top of my head Jud’s girlfriend (one of those sisters who all look aline but are different ages so they confuse the poo poo out of me) just disappears for half the film and then becomes a key part of the final act. Her having a prior relationship with the First Nations sister feels like it never comes up but then it matters big. And for that matter Jud’s relationship with her brother and Timmy feels entirely undeveloped until the end when there’s flashbacks of it. Like the hell? That’s across the board. This secret sect of people protecting the town isn’t developed at all. What was the deal with the priest? And why get David Duchovny, Henry Thomas, and Pam loving Grier if you’re just gonna sideline them for most of the film? None of this is confusing or hard to follow or anything, its just all kind of lazily put together with no effort to flesh it out or focus on anything. And there’s stuff I liked. I liked the way that they really kind of leaned in on the idea that the resurrected folks had that kind of Wendigo hunger. There’s some vague allusions in the other films but Timmy seems to be going full on zombie/wendigo hunger. I would have loved to see them dig more into that. Or anything really. This film is just 84 minutes and holy poo poo they did not ask for a single extra minute did they? Just focus and get into the meat of something. Instead we get these really half developed ideas of lore and character history. They’re not necessarily bad but they’re not good either. They’re just tossed around. Its not the worst thing ever. But its not good. It fails to ever really dig in. It doesn’t feel like the previous films and doesn’t ever form its own identity. It abandons its characters and lore ideas to sink or swim on their own. Its so short it never gets annoying or boring or anything and it moves quickly enough that I never got antsy. But I never got engaged either and I only care enough to realize that if Jud went through all this poo poo and STILL started all that poo poo with the Creeds then he’s a real rear end in a top hat. What the gently caress, dude? You could have at least told him the whole story. Way to be an rear end in a top hat. I’m glad you grow up to be John Lithgow and not Fred Gwynne. No disrespect to Lithgow but I don’t want to think less of Gwynne Jud.  22 (33). Jack-O (1995) Directed by Steve Latshaw; Written by Brad Linaweaver, Patrick Moran, and Lee Shapiro Watched on Youtube A movie so bad it killed John Carradine and Cameron Mitchell. Seriously, its rare to encounter a film THIS badly made. Like as amateurish and poorly made as people like to insist every mediocre Hollywood film is in their hyperbolic responses. Or I guess its rare if you’re not seeking it out, which I rarely do. This is apparently some kind of trash film favorite but I actually just pulled it off a list of films set in Florida because I needed that for a challenge and it had the clear Halloween theme. I knew literally nothing else about it when I pressed play and boy was I not prepared for just how bad it was from the acting to the audio to the effects to the story to the low rent Pumpkinhead/Michael Myers whatever its explicitly stealing from. Also that thing all these low rent producers like Band do where they just reuse footage from other films and shove it in there. And poor Linnea Quigley getting paid to take a shower. Apparently the thing fans appreciate the most about this is a train wreck audio commentary where the producer Fred Ray is a condescending dick to director Steve Latshaw until he gets furious and storms off. I listened to a little of it and they seem like assholes. At least the film’s reasonably well shot. Really I don’t know what to say about this. Its poo poo. I guess if you enjoy that you might have fun with it. A lot of people seem to. I was just waiting for it to end so I could go take a poop.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2023 03:53
|
|
|
 23 (34). Chemical Wedding (2008) Directed by Julian Doyle; Written by Bruce Dickinson and Julian Doyle Wow. That was a weird film. I have no idea what to make of it. I know I didn’t enjoy it. At times it felt like a british show from the early 2000s that someone convinced me to download. The story is a mess. Written by some guy from Iron Maiden he really needed to take a class or something. Its just really a mess of a script and characters. It definitely feels like there’s more of an infatuation with Alastair Crowley and his brand of satanism/magick/horniness than any real compelling narrative or anything. And the sci fi VR machine used as a plot device to first “resurrect” Crowley and then to provide the confusing as gently caress nonsensical theoretical physics ending is just dumb as gently caress. This feels very much like a movie written by a metal musician who has read more about this stuff than is healthy but not near enough to know what he’s talking about. I also couldn’t get a handle on the tone of this at all. 90% of the time it felt straight up as hell. Just dead serious. And then there’s these moments. Completely deranged sex moments or lines. I don’t think its too spoilery to say stuff like at one point a professor says “Crowley’s classic calling card” while string at a giant pile of poop. Or that at one point Crowley uses a magic sex spell to fax his cum to someone. There’s a fair number of moments like this and they’re played completely straight and dry but when they happened I found myself scratching my head and looking around for someone to help make sense of this with me. And the thing is this film’s director edited Life of Brian, Brazil, the Meaning of Life, and Time Bandits. So like that sort of stuff feels like its definitely in vein with the Monty Python/Terry Gilliam sense of humor. And that dry British delivery that can barely register as a joke sometimes. But it doesn’t land here. I mean not for me. Someone else might get a kick out of it as I think was intended. But I didn’t. And really, even if those moments crack you up they’re few and far between in this 100+ minute slog of sci fi technical mumbo jumbo and rambling horny theological poetry. If there’s one thing going for this its Simon Callow as the resurrected/reincarnated/possessing Crowley. For one I didn’t even recognize him from his pre possessed character. It was such a stark transformation at every level it didn’t even register to me that it was the same guy until I ended up rewatching the first part of the film because I was so confused. But also he just gives it his all as Crowley and embraces the total weirdness and pervyness and narcissism. He’s going full on and in a better movie or with a better story it might have really worked. But on its own its a bizarre rear end character played incredibly well. But its a mess of a movie of weird horniness, muddled ideas and genres, and inexperienced creative team just doing a bad job from beginning to end. Basebf555 posted:
This challenge has been kind of hard for me to label and there’s probably a number of films that could have counted. Like is it a film that just merges horror with other genres, a film that has horror but is more dominated by another genre, or ones that are kind just barely horror if you squint? Its probably intended to be open to interpretation to make it easier but I overthink things so I just tend to struggle more with choices. But this is a weird movie that’s more sci fi and weird sexual stuff and sort of very dry british comedy but also definitely supernatural devil worshipping horror. So I guess it counts?  24 (35). Night of the Demons III (1997) Directed by Jimmy Kaufman; Written by Kevin Tenney Still fairly fun but the diminishing returns are definitely kicking in here. One thing I respect about this franchise is even though at its core its “people keep coming to that one place and that one demon keeps messing with them” they definitely have made an effort to make each film feel kind of different and have something a little more than just a bunch of dumb teenagers going to a haunted house. I mean that’s what keeps happening but the second film throws this school setting to open and close the film and has goofy fun with combat nuns and poo poo. Its all silly but its fun and different. This one isn’t as inspired. Its just a bunch of assholes and a few nice people ending up in the place and then off brand Deadite action. Which is fine. Its fun enough and there’s some solid effort put in here. But also the formula is running thin and its been 9 years of Angela chilling in that house in that dress. But bless her, it doesn’t stop her from doing a sexy dance. Speaking of like the first 10 minutes of this movie is just boobs. There’s a lot of gratuitous boobs and sex in here. I’ll let you decide what you think of that. Anyway, I didn’t dislike this at all. The protagonists you’re supposed to be rooting for are actually kind of likable. The assholes get Deadited. There’s some people in between, good people who get the short end of the stick and jerks who maybe didn’t deserve to die and that gives the movie some punch. I mean, its whatever. Its again the equivalent of your grandma buying the off brand toys from the drug store. Its clear what we’re doing here and its not as good as when Raimi did it, but its still pretty fun to play with if you give it a chance. They even themed up the Deadite kids. Its silly but its fun. And that’s it. It silly, Its nothing special. Its derivative. But its fun enough. And really its a fine enough place for someone to have said “ok, lets not do any more of these” before they embarrassed themselves. Not every horror franchise can say that. Of course we still have a remake.  25 (36). Pumpkinhead: Ashes to Ashes (2006) Directed by Jake West; Screenplay by Jake West and Barbara Werner; Based on Pumpkinhead by Ed Justin There’s gotta be easier ways to get mob justice against a bunch of serial killers in custody in the swamp than getting a witch to conjure a demon. But hey, easy check for Lance Henriksen. This is really bad. Like “I dunno if its worth watching the last one” bad. I couldn’t sleep and this is the exact sort of poo poo I would have watched on cable at 4 AM 20 years ago. But I had moments of really wondering why I was watching it. A movie like this really needs some host making bad jokes about it and commercial breaks so you can take a break and grab a snack or something. Just sitting and watching a movie like this for 90 minutes really tests your resolve with the things you’re doing with your life. Terrible CGI Pumpkinhead. Completely nondescript and unlikable characters. Jumbled poor story that puts the emphasis away from Pumpkinhead. Ugly as gently caress look with this orange filter over poo poo. Henriksen is here but he’s barely here. I could have shot his scenes in an hour. Like he shows up as a ghost to scold people a few times and then makes a brief cameo as a transformed corpse until he transforms into Pumpkinhead. Like I said, easy check. Doug “Pinhead” Bradley takes a main role as the creepy incestuous doctor patriarch of the serial killer family at the core of this and he’s amusing enough I guess. But its a bad character and a bad script and a bad production and a bad idea. Maybe not as bad an idea as my insistence to finish these last two SyFy entries in this series. But either way this is a bad movie in desperate need of a Svengoolie or Joe Bob Briggs or Gilbert Gottfried or MST3K crew to help you through. All I had was insomnia and a smart phone.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2023 05:40
|
|
|
 - (37). Graveyard Shift (1990) Directed by Ralph S. Singleton; Screenplay by John Esposito; Based on "Graveyard Shift" Stephen King Watched on Max. I watched this a bunch as a kid on TV and loved it but haven’t seen it in a long time. I still really had a good time though. Its so sweaty and grimy and all. Its got a good cast including Brad Douriff managing to call up the emotional tears while telling his ‘Nam rat story. Its got that King feel where it feels like there’s a bigger town here, lots of secrets and stories, and that King probably once had to work by some big scary machine at some terrible rat infested job and it got his imagination going. I don’t really know why the end creature is a bat-rat instead of just a giant rat but whatever. I guess they needed the thing to be able to fly out of its nest? I dunno. Its ugly and massive and eats people. And it plays basically an ensemble villain role with the rat army, the evil menacing machine, and the worst monster of them all. The boss. Stephen Macht might make the film with his truly detestable portray of just the worst boss in the world. Its not enough that he has his employees work under terrible conditions for poo poo pay. Its not enough that he’s probably cheating people and stealing money. Its not enough that he’s a sex pest and hits women. That he’s petty and uses his power at every opportunity. He’s also got that drat accent and slow drawl. If there was nothing else he’d be memorable for that slow drag in the New England accent and the way it just hangs there in every conversation. He could tell you you were getting a raise and an employee of the month plaque and the way he says it you’d loath him and know it was a punishment somehow. He’s just so slimy. I don’t even mind him just snapping and going full psycho because honestly it probably just took a little stress and a blow to the head to get that out of him anyway. And his end is perfect. Just his spiteful “We’ll go to hell together!” lunge at the monster. That’s so him. I still really enjoyed it. Its got some rough edges. Some soft acting performances. Maybe a soft middle of the story. But I enjoyed it all. Its got atmosphere and sweat and grit and a million goddamn rats and a lineup of villains and bad poo poo and just enough character work to make their fates feel like they matter. This seems to get hated on a lot. A 0% Rotten Tomatoes score. But I don’t care. I had a good time. Probably just shouldn’t have watched it on the one day I was freezing. Or a few days after I found a dead mouse. I’m jumping at noises in a whole different way than I usually do after a good spooky movie. Basebf555 posted:
 26 (38). Sole Survivor (1984) Written and directed by Thom Eberhardt Watched on Shudder I was so bored by this. A lot of people seem high on it but I dunno. I just found it so dull. It gets compared to It Follows and Final Destination and rightfully so since it uses a lot of the same elements those do to the point where you might have to ask if maybe they ripped it off a little. But its done with all the atmosphere and tension of a bad TV movie. I also just straight up didn’t get it. Its premise feels jumbled. If some force is trying to kill her to set the course right or complete the plan then why is it also just freely killing people left and right? And why is it just going on completely absent her? There’s no apparent rhyme or reason here. People dropping dead anyway popping up and killing people. Is this a zombie apocalypse origin story or a person story of survivor’s guilt or what? And it even misses like really obvious story beats that would make dramatic and narrative sense. It just whiffs them for something else. I don’t get it. I dunno. As I said it does clearly feel like someone watched it and got an idea when making Final Destination or It Follows. I think It Follows in particular looks a little sus next to this. But also It Follows is just a better film. Final Destination is too. I’m not even a real fan of either but they just execute the idea much better than this does. Sole Survivor is maybe a little interesting as a precursor to those more successful films but on its own merits it feels dry, slow, dull, and like it just baubles its ideas into kind of a confusing mess at the end.  - (39). Night of the Demons (2009) Directed by Adam Gierasch; Screenplay by Adam Gierasch and Jace Anderson; Based on Night of the Demons by Joe Augustyn Watched on Amazon Prime Sadly this is just a lot less fun than the original trilogy of films. Its not terrible or anything. For a 2000s horror its downright solid. But the vibe of the 2000s really stands out when watching it after the films from the 80s and 90s. And I’m not like someone who worships the 80s or its films or anything. There’s good stuff and bad stuff. But Night of the Demons comes in 88 after Evil Dead 2 and its pretty clear that the films are pulling off that Sam Raimi/Deadite energy. That’s just not here unfortunately and its replaced with that kind of 2000s energy. Just lots of quick cuts and flashing stuff and noise. The demons aren’t half bad here but the film never really features them well enough to get anything from them. They have no goofy Deadite energy, they really just jump around growling as the camera cuts away constantly. Its not hiding them or anything, its just so frantic that its a blur of half seen images of decent practical makeup and effects that you can’t really appreciate and they didn’t put a ton of thought into. It feels like someone said “boob tentacles” and they ended the creative meeting satisfied. It also kind of does the thing of its time where it focuses a lot more on lore and explaining why this is happening. And I don’t necessarily mind that but again, its just not that interesting and its a lot less fun than the manic demons just wanna have fun energy of the others. And that sums up things. Outside of some nostalgia from seeing Monica Keena, Shannon Elizabeth, and a hard living Eddie Furlong there’s just not a lot here. Its an ok enough little film. It does enough and isn’t too long. But its nothing special and just lacks the same fun of the films that preceded it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2023 06:49
|
|
|
Deadite posted:I don't know, it's never been clear to me in that movie whether he killed the pet cat He absolutely did and he's a complete sociopath. That being said I don't think I saw Reanimator in Angry Black Girl besides the obvious Frankenstein parallels. Vicaria is a mad scientist but so was Frankenstein. Frankenstein and Vicaria also share some core early motivation of having lost their mothers setting them on their path to try and conquer death. Herbert West is just a sociopath.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2023 21:00
|
|
|
Deadite posted:This is where I have mixed feelings about the movie. We're told Vicaria is motivated by the death of her brother but we don't spend any time with that character prior to his death or see the relationship they had. Then the scene of her in school arguing with her teacher feels like it was lifted directly out of Re-Animator, so maybe that's informing my view of Vicaria. To me it felt like reversing death was her real goal and bringing back her brother was secondary. I do agree that she was less motivated about specifically bringing back her brother than she was “curing death”. But that’s true of Frankenstein too. He’s motivated by loss but he’s driven by ego and a god complex. And the movie does show Vicaria has a bit of that. I think the clear difference between her West is West is purely motivated by his ego and scientific curiosity. Vicaria is motivated by the world she’s living in where she fears losing his father like she did her brother and mother and where death comes so easy. She really is trying to conquer death but not for her own ego but to save the lives of the people she loves. West would never concern himself with such things. And the school scene feels less about her and more about the reality that she lives in a society that doesn’t understand or care about the needs of her or her community. That goes to her sister in law teaching her siblings about black history, Vicaria arguing with her and calling her a hotep, her father sticking up for her with the teacher, etc. I’d argue the movie takes more from Boyz N the Hood than ReAnimator. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Oct 11, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2023 22:07
|
|
|
 27 (40). Pumpkinhead: Blood Feud (2007) Written and directed by Michael Hurst; Based on Pumpkinhead by Ed Justice This was better than 3? I guess? That’s a low bar but I was dreading watching this after that one. Granted maybe that one was made worse by me watching it super late as I couldn’t sleep. But its a bad film. And this isn’t a good film either but I dunno. Its not quite as bad. The weird choice to go with a Hatfield vs McCoys story with this is a choice. I dunno if its a good one or a bad one. Nor do I really know what to make of it being set in modern days but looking like everyone was living in the 1920s. Its all a bit odd. But its less bad than the other one at least. Not good. Just… not as bad as I feared. Pumpkinhead is kind of a secondary character here which would be weird if that wasn’t how the 3rd film went either. It actually almost feels like someone at the SyFy network had an idea to make like a Pumpkinhead anthology series where he just is the monster who pops up to kill some people when a small town has a crisis. Like if the A-Team were made up of Jason, Freddy, The Babadook, and the Candyman or something. Its goofy and it doesn’t work but it stands out. Oh and Pumpkinhead looks like practical effects again instead of really bad CGI. And that honestly makes a really big difference. Its much more fun watching him bitch slap a cop down the stairs than some computer graphic climb roofs and whip its tail around. So if you wanna see a story about a Hatfields and McCoys feud that ends up having a Pumpkinhead caught up in it then I’ve got good news for you. But not really. This isn’t worth watching. But its not painful to watch either. Its just kind of… I don’t wanna say mediocre. Its still not good. But like… its a digestible kind of bad. Like a frozen pizza that didn’t heat all the way through. Its not good and you can tell what’s wrong but you know… its just easier to eat it. I dunno if that made any sense. I’m not sleeping or eating a lot right now.  28 (41). Moloch Directed by Nico van den Brink; Screenplay by Nico van den Brink and Daan Bakker Watched on AMC+ A really solid moody spooky folky family trauma tale. A lot of hits for me. Sort of reminded me of a quasi Wicker Man thing. Like the white dude stumbling into a local set of pagan beliefs and cult stuff. That’s not the focus though. Its on the main character and her worries that her family is caught up in the middle of this weird culty stuff. Maybe a bit like Lords of Salem? I dunno. Its a movie that felt familiar in a lot of ways but also feels like I can’t just sum it up by comparing it to one other well known movie. And that’s a big win I think. When you can take familiar horror elements and give them your own spin and identity. Familiar but also new. I like that. And as familiar as many of the elements felt it kept me uneven and unsure of exactly what was happening right to the end. Mind you I don’t try and guess the mystery but that’s also kind of the strength. The movie had me immersed deeply enough into the characters’ uncovering the truth and living this story that I wasn’t distracted trying to think ahead to the end of the story. So when the reveals came I was effectively surprised, confused, and then wowed. I dug it and I have no complaints but also not a lot to say. I think it benefits from just going in and experiencing it. Getting into the vibe and letting the story happen. There’s even some movies I could have compared it to that I’m just not gonna because I think it would reveal a bit too much. And I think its a good enough movie to warrant just going into because you’re intrigued by the idea of culty, folky, spooky, or whatever and just letting it happen. I was pretty tired and could have bounced off this hard but instead it pulled me in fully and satisfyingly before bed.  29 (42). Depraved (2019) Written and directed by Larry Fessenden Watched on AMC+ A really enjoyable modern adaption of Frankenstein set in NYC. Emo Frankenstein’s Creature roaming NYC’s nightlife and all the ladies are interested in the sexy, scarred, quiet guy. Ain’t that always the way? Its much more in the gothic romance kind of vibe than a scary horror. “Romance” in the literary sense, as despite my joke its not a romance. Its got the same elements the original story or the classic adaptions do. The Creature’s complicated relationship with his “father” Henry. An awkward and possibly jealous triangle of relationship with Henry’s empathetic lover Liz. A curiosity and confusion to experience the world and figure out his place in it. I desire for a bride of his own so he’s not lonely. Henry afraid of what he’s created and anger towards him for it. It hits all the familiar spots but does them in a different kind of way with a bit more added in for its own vibe and story. And there’s a ton of cute little references and easter eggs. My favorite was the “bride” being named Shelley, not just a reference to Mary Shelley but also to Elsa Lanchester playing both Shelley and the Bride in the classic Universal version. Just fun little stuff like that scattered about, not relying on you getting to enjoy the movie but definitely enhancing the experience if you do. To that end I definitely think I got more out of it being so familiar with Frankenstein and its many adaptions. This is the second modern adaption I’ve seen this month so far? But it doesn’t feel derivative or like just one of another versions of the same story. Fessenden gives it that NYC character and modern feel and the characters feel like their own. You won’t be super surprised by anything if you know the story well enough but its still an enjoyable ride. Maybe a tad bit long and if I was gonna nitpick it feels like the subplot about the Creature’s past memories and identity gets a bit underserved. But I thought a strong ending and a good journey. My second Fessenden film and I’m starting to get his vibe and I like it. And its a HalloweeNIT movie. Final Four gets drawn tomorrow so if you wanna vote to see who gets there and what I watch next you can until 12 noon EST (or when I get to it) Oct 12th!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2023 06:19
|
|
|
I want to shamelessly steal the gimmick.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2023 04:23
|
|
|
 30 (43). The Carpenter (1988) Directed by David Wellington; Written by Doug Taylor Watched on Youtube Meh. Its alright. Its stupid and goofy. Its clearly at least partially intended to be. The particular balance and tone of comedy didn’t hit with me. I’m pretty sure I was supposed to be cracking up at the awkward interactions and the gruesome murders but that’s not my thing. And its delivered in a pretty dry way. The whole film has a kind of dry tone to it, which can probably be chalked up to its low budget in part but which I think leaves the whole thing kind of on cruise control. Some reviews called it “dreamy” and you could certainly go there especially with the subplot that the lady is mentally ill and hallucinates stuff. But the film never really plays around with the realness of any of this. While the mental stability of our main character certainly might factor into her decision to have an affair with a serial killing ghost there’s never any real doubt that he’s there. Wings Hauser does a good job with his weird role as the serial killing “nice guy” ghost. Played against the lovely condescending husband he’s the guy who is a bit more respectful to the wife looking for someone to do so. But he’s also clearly a psycho and there’s no question that she’s only on his good side because she’s on his side and not questioning any of this madness or killing or whatever. He’s clearly as toxic an rear end in a top hat and narcissist as anyone and that plays out as expected. I’m not surprised there’s a bunch of people simping for him in reviews. Ain’t that always the way? Its ok enough but as I said it just never really hooked me and the comedy of it came off sillier to me than funny. You’re probably gonna feel it or not. It also would probably help if you’re a slasher fan and into the gory kills. I’m not so its whatever. Nothing’s really ever done enough with the characters or core story and to be honest the main character feels like she really gets shortchanged in this and rarely given any real agency or development. That feels like a huge missed opportunity for this film to have been something more and also you know… present a woman as something other than a mentally ill damsel lovestruck over a psycho serial killing ghost. That would be nice. But its a slasher from the 80s so asking for too much. It will work more for fans of those but it missed the mark for me.  31 (44). Rhymes for Young Ghouls (2013) Written and directed by Jeff Barnaby Watched on Hoopla A bit of a stretch to call it horror but a pretty good movie. Had I saved my “horror adjacent” challenge I would have used it here. Set on Halloween, using some imagery, certainly a horrific set of circumstances. This is ostensibly another story about the long term legacy and trauma of the way First Nations people were treated in North America, specifically in this case forced to attend schools to be indoctrinated away from their beliefs and culture where many were abused and killed. Don’t mind the “another” since its of course a very important story that we should hear more about. The film feels kind of unfocused though. That story element is in there for sure but its kind of a backdrop to this crime drama that actually sort of reminded me a bit of a Scorsese film. Like the in depth character look at the people within these worlds of organized crime. That they’re not all monsters or something, although some might be, but many are just doing what they know to do to survive. Kawennáhere Devery Jacobs is super good as the main girl, a teenager forced to lead this circus when tragedy rips her family away. We’re watching her story really and while I think its kind of unfocused on whether its about the injustices done to her people or the tragedy and hardship of her family or the responsibility to her people its all kind of an understandable mix of a young woman’s efforts to just be. So like she’s not really on a mission for justice or to heal her family or whatever. She’s just surviving. And Jacobs does a great job at the center of that. Another reason I really need to get to Reservation Dogs on my current Hulu sub. So while I’m not sure the core story ever felt super resolved or full to me it ends up kind of playing second to the character and setting. A gorgeous looking film that kind of manages to combine both the beauty of the setting and the ugliness and danger of it. Again, I’ll compare it a bit to Scorsese. Which is a big comp but it feels like the same kind of thing in a lot of ways. I was iffy about counting it as a horror but a bunch of people do and its definitely got its elements. But either way its a good film that’s definitely worth seeing. Its a shame Barnaby passed away so young since he was obviously an interesting and talented voice for a people who have very little voice in Hollywood.  32 (45). From Beyond the Grave (1974) Directed by Kevin Connor; Screenplay by Raymond Christodoulou and Robin Clarke; Based on The Elemental and Other Stories, Cold Terror, and The Unbidden by R. Chetwynd-Hayes Watched on TMC I enjoyed that. Its another Amicus horror anthology, the last one. Maybe not the best one? But I enjoyed it more than the last one I watched. I thought maybe it went on a little long although it feels like these are usually 5 stories and this one was 4. Maybe that’s it? Maybe they felt a bit longer? I dunno. I was getting antsy in the last story but that could also just be that I thought it was the weakest of them. Its not really bad and it plays in an interesting way to the overall theme of stealing and dishonesty coming back on the patrons of this shop in supernatural ways. My favorite piece was probably the Elemental if just for Margaret Leighton’s really delightful performance as the like Mary Poppins like exorcist lady. She feels like a character stolen for the Harry Potter books or something. She’s just a lot of fun and that segment is made all the better for her silly energy. Loved it. I thought the Donald Pleasance bit was a bit odd and I didn’t quite get it. Probably just a little too nihilistic or mean for me or something? I dunno. The two corner pieces are whatever. Fine enough little spooky stories but nothing especially memorable about either of them. Sadly Peter Cushing feels underused here. He really doesn’t do much except turn away while his customers rob him. Obviously its the usual deal where he’s something more sinister basically tempting these assholes into sealing their fates. But he barely has any lines and really doesn’t do anything. Its kind of a bummer. These Amicus anthologies had to be a good gig for him since he really only had to show up for the wrap arounds but this one really was an easy gig. Good for him, but disappointing for us.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2023 09:08
|
|
|
I am crazy backlogged on reviews. Been a blah week so haven’t been up much for writing but still been watching some. So sorry for the excess. 33 (46). The Ranger (2018) Directed by Jenn Wexler; Written by Giaco Furino and Jenn Wexler Watched on AMC+ A bunch of punk assholes encounter a psycho quasi cop rear end in a top hat and an 80s slasher happens. Its not bad. It captures its aesthetics although I think while trying to merge the 80s punk thing and the 80s slasher in the woods thing is an interesting idea I’m not sure either is able to really shine in the process. And the basic premise of the punks being shits who do thinks like spray paint trees and start forest fires serving as a very loose justification for our psycho killer doesn’t really work very well as a concept and kind of feels like it falls apart a bit with the last act reveals and weirdness. The last act is the most engaging part of the film and it ends strongly, but it also feels like it kind of undermines the previous stuff and ideas in the film. Be they the concept of family you are born with or family you find, or anti establishment punk attitude vs traditional respect for nature and rules, or whatever. I find it hard to really zero in on an idea here as it feels like the film has a bunch of them but none of them really ever get fully developed and end up taking a back seat to the ultimate reveal and stuff in the final act. But that isn’t to say that this is bad or anything. Its a very good directorial debut for Jenn Wexler who had been involved in a lot of movies coming out of the Larry Fessenden/Glass Eye/NYC indie horror film crew that helped produce Ti West and others. Is Wexler the next big name? I dunno. But I’m curious to see her latest film after this one and see what she’s got. This is also my second film this week with another Glass Eye Pix regular Chloë Levine and while she didn’t have a ton to do in Depraved she is the lead here and does a great job. Both are now on my radar. I probably would have gotten more out of this if I was into slashers. Or punk stuff. Or the 80s. Its all a lot of elements that are big with some people but not me. So maybe it all clicks better if you are into that stuff and Wexler’s amalgamation of them. But still, I enjoyed it well enough and at 77 minutes it hardly has the time to linger or get stagnant. And as I said, for as much I’m not sure all the parts blend together properly I do think they all kind of work on their own and even as an amalgamation. Punk kids in the woods is a funny and interesting concept even if there isn’t a deranged killer after them. And the final act is a strong finish that I think really raised my opinion for it. Always good to end strong. And always good to want to see more and I do want to see more from the parties involved here.  - (47). [REC] (2007) Directed by Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza; Written by Paco Plaza, Luis A. Berdejo, and Jaume Balagueró Watched on Amazon Prime A favorite of mine. One of the best found footage by common sentiment. Probably one of my first real ventures into foreign horror and what they were doing outside America. It came along in that time when the internet was making it easier to get access to those films and my maturity had improved enough to get over some basic cultural gaps or subtitles. Of course I remember watching a copy of this I downloaded off Kazaa instead of just pulling it up on Amazon Prime. So we sure have come a long way for as much as the streaming era still has its issues and problems. But whatever. Still holds up and I think it does everything. Time its just a well paced fun use of the found footage format for the zombie genre that can often feel derivative but here feels pretty fresh even without the last scene twist. I love the apartment setting and I’ve said many times there should be more horror films set in apartments and urban settings. Its one of those symptoms of the lack of diversity in horror. And this film uses the apartment as a labyrinth and large setting that still feels claustrophobic so well. So much action just from running up and down flights of stairs and so much tension just from who might be behind a door or around a narrow hallway. And man do you not want to deal with zombies in a narrow hallway. And the basic setup of the film with the TV crew doing a puff piece on firefighters is very well done and established. I’m not someone who gets bothered by “why are they filming this?” but it does feel more established here at least for those who do get bothered. Although that camera man still probably could have helped more. C’mon, Pablo. So yeah a super fun watch I popped on when I was feeling real bad. And I’m looking forward to finally continuing through with this franchise. I think Paco Plaza and Jaume Balaquero are some of the most underrated horror directors around today. Their stuff kicks rear end and yet I guess there’s just not really a natural pipeline or fanbase for Spanish horror? I dunno. But two of my favorite active horror directors for sure and this is where it all started for me. Basebf555 posted:
 34 (48). Chiller (1985) Directed by Wes Craven, Written by J.D. Feigelson Watched on Internet Archive A Wes Craven film so outside the bubble that Wikipedia doesn't even have it listed in his filmography. I watched an old VHS recording rip taken off WTOG44 tv and hosted by Dr. Paul Bearer which was a fun and appropriate wrinkle. Its not very good. No real surprise there. Most of that can be chalked up to the TV movie nature of it. It feels low budget and just not that sharply made. I do tend to be able to see some of Wes in his TV movies. He usually inserts some of his oddball sensibility or shades of stuff to come in his career but I just don’t see it here. The premise is kind of interesting. A douchebag gets cryogenically frozen when he’s dying and then gets unfrozen and cured and “resurrected” and now he may not have a soul. Of course he’s a wealthy corporate nepobaby so he could have been a monster all along. Really, there’s no evidence presented that he wasn’t evil before. There’s no one who even really knew him besides his mom and his priest and they’re hardly the most unbiased opinions. Maybe this was always gonna be what happened when you gave this rear end in a top hat the corporate reigns. And put a pretty stepsister in his house. All his evilness and somehow him installing a peep hole in a closet feels borderline comical. I mean he’s a monster but what a lame one. I don’t think this is necessarily terrible or anything, its just not all that exciting. The premise feels potentially interesting but it plays out mostly like your typical tv movie. There’s just not much oomph here and I guess Wes films this one after Nightmare on Elm Street so maybe he was mailing it in? Well I don’t know how exactly this fit into his career for some reason its not even listed on his Wikipedia page. Actually Wes’ Wikipedia entry kind of sucks barely giving detail about the stages and steps of his career. Shame. Anyway this is a footnote on Craven’s career, a footnote deemed not important enough by Wikipedia or its contributors to be included. And really its not worth seeking out for any reason except my own completionist goal of seeing all his films. This is the second to last of his horror films I haven’t seen and there’s only a few other genre films I’m gonna try and fit in before the year ends. Hopefully they’ll be a bit better than this one but if they’re not that won’t be too bad since this was a totally fine if utterly forgettable watch. As long as I pace them out a bit.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2023 06:19
|
|
|
Saturday night means Svengoolie night. Which if nothing else was a comfort on a night I was miserable, in pain, and freezing. Pure comfort horror. “Cozy horror”? I dunno. But well worth these rewatches and even helped me finally get some of my decorating completed way too late in the month.  - (47). Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) Directed by Charles Barton; Screenplay by Robert Lees, Frederic I. Rinaldo, and John Grant Watched on Svengoolie/MeTV Its funny how many times I’ve watched this considering I only saw it for the first time a few years ago, Only saw any of the Universal horrors a few years ago but back when I finally did this was really such a perfect sendoff to the classic monsters bringing Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney Jr, and even Vincent Price together. And with the fun and silly comedy of Bud and Lou. That may not be for everyone but its right up my corny dad joke alley. And its a lot of fun set against these classic monsters. I guess Chaney felt like it made a joke of the monsters and was upset and maybe Boris Karloff didn’t take part for the same reason. But I feel like there’s a solid amount of respect in here. We’re not really mocking the monsters, we’re just sticking these two idiots into a Universal horror movie. Maybe the time since then helps me see that perspective since as much as I enjoy the Universals there’s definitely a certain amount they age and come off a little campy by default. I saw a millennial the other day say that the classic films from 80s like Nightmare on Elm Street, Poltergeist, and specifically Hellraiser that these movies have all “evolved into comedies” and I was personally outraged and offended. But it is probably the way of things. Time dooms most things to age in a way that the future generations will dismiss at some level out of hand because of the basic technical or societal steps forward we’ve taken or just because those movies have become more meme than movie for some. And to that end Abbott and Costello having fun and maybe at some level making fun of Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolfman might feel more natural and harmless today than it did back then. I dunno. I still think the jokes is on the guys and not the monsters. But I can grant a very different perspective than Chaney and Karloff. Then again maybe Karloff’s back was just not up to the Monster. But I digress. Its a super fun film that really hit the spot for me. Maybe it kind of drags a little in the middle? I’m not sure that masquerade ball scene serves a ton of purpose, and I’m not sure the subplot with the insurance investigator even registers in my memory. Its weird, like even now I’m barely remembering Joan as a character. I think my mind is just so focused on Bud and Lou and their bits and there’s so much of that early on that when the film tries to insert a deeper plot it almost bounces off. Like just have Lou wander around like a moron. Its worked so far. Then again maybe it was just me feeling bad and a little bit distracted getting decorations up. I dunno. But I still had a good time and think its a great film. Maybe not my best viewing conditions but also kind of the perfect comfort horror for me on a lousy, cold, painful night. STAC Goat posted:I have no idea what I’m doing for that one but I’m just gonna hope Svengoolie and the month makes it happen organically. If not I guess I watch some Abbot and Costello for Halloween. Basebf555 posted:
 - (48). Invaders from Mars (1986) Directed by Tobe Hooper; Screenplay by Dan O'Bannon, Don Jakoby, and Richard Blake (original film); Based on Invaders from Mars 1953 film by John Tucker Battle Watched on Svengoolie/MeTV I saw this one a couple of years ago and it didn’t really resonate with me besides a general appreciation for Tobe Hooper’s versatility as a filmmaker. I think that was my entire takeaway from that viewing. I think it kind of overshadowed the movie itself. It just happened to come at the time of my viewing of Hooper’s filmography that I felt like I got him and I guess that left the movie as an afterthought. I didn’t even much remember it so while I was a little ambivalent on whether I felt like rewatching a movie that didn’t do much for me the first time I also decided to just sit down, phones down, get under a warm blanket, and give it a “fresh view”. And I’m glad I did because I enjoyed it a lot more than I remembered or my first review would suggest. Its a kind of weird borderline goofy piece. Goofy is probably the wrong word. Its not really camp or silly, or at least doesn’t feel so by design. But there’s a broad approach to the story that is maybe intended to emulate the style of those 50s sci fi films that the original came from that definitely comes off kind of camp. Not so much that I was laughing at it but in a way that felt completely at home on Svengoolie and in my mood of the night of looking or something “comfy”. There’s a lot of fun performances. Karen Black’s school nurse makes some really questionable choices when the random kid starts telling her that aliens have invaded. A lot of trust in that kid you probably barely know. It would be borderline creepy if it didn’t turn out that it was actually Black’s kid. But again this kind of plays into the kind of broad vibe to this thing. Or like the way the military is just so casually introduced into the equation. Karen Black and her kid just sort of invite themselves into a general’s office and have a real easy conversation. Really everyone’s getting on this “alien invasion” beat real easy. And the puppet work and effects of the aliens is probably the biggest strength of this thing. Those are just really good aliens. And again, maybe a little campy with age but also just really drat good. And definitely worth the price of admission. So yeah, I dunno. Its probably a bit clumsy and maybe a little shallow. Its not a great film technically speaking. But its doing some really great effects and horror, the cast seem to really get what they’re going for, Hooper does a great job putting this all together, and it does feel in many ways like a throwback or a love letter to those old films that is fun and kind of funny but not mocking or silly. I really enjoyed it and I wasn’t feeling good so that’s a nice feat. So I’m glad I revisited it and made it a full double feature Svengoolie night  - (49). [REC]² (2009) Directed by Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza; Written by Jaume Balagueró, Paco Plaza, and Manu Díez Watched on Amazon Prime Feeling bad, having a light Svengoolie movie night as comfort, and then not being able to fall asleep for hours I decided to pop the second REC on and see what happens. I’d seen this once before a couple of years ago but it hadn’t really registered very much with me. I think its a fine film. Perfectly good and entertaining but I do think its kind of flawed. I think the big problem is that it partly feels like a bit of a retread or extra footage of the great movie we’ve already saw. I don’t mind sequels of great films at all and in fact I really enjoy horrors that pick up where the last one left off. Nothing gets hurt by that for me and I’m always curious to see the story continue. And the actually continuing stuff really worked for me. I especially just really like the way they meld the zombie tropes with the possession ones. I’m a huge fan of both subgenres but there’s question they can both be derivative. But there’s something very fun and unique feeling about zombies who are really people possessed. I’m not sure how exactly it works mechanically but I like the idea of it. And that’s definitely the best part of the film for me. I think the worst part is probably the middle part of the film with the teenagers. Its not bad or anything, but it feels off the way it breaks away from the narrative and starts telling its own narrative. And if that narrative were especially different or went anywhere I’d be more into it but it really does just kind of feel like filler that you could completely remove without affecting the narrative at all. It just feels like they felt a need to pad the thing out, and maybe were curious to play around the idea of found footage from multiple perspectives. Which is sort of interesting but I dunno. As I said I don’t think its bad or anything, I just think the pacing of the film gets broken up by the awkward chapter breaks and shakily meaningful middle part. But again, I didn’t dislike this at all. At worst its derivative of a film I love. More of the same. More of something you love is still something you love. Maybe you love it less when you have too much of it or when its a little lower in quality. But its still not gonna be something you hate, right? At least not for awhile. So I’m curious to keep going with this because I do enjoy it but there definitely could be diminishing returns with each sequel. On the other hand I really do like the whole possession angle and I’m curious to see where that goes. Basebf555 posted:
STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Oct 16, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2023 07:47
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:It did make me really want to watch this and Quarantine at the same time just to see how it lines up. I don't understand why that movie exists besides Americans refuse to read subtitles, and that being the reason is a pretty scathing indictment. I know this is the general opinion and I don’t doubt there are people who have ugly or ignorant reasons for rejecting subtitles but I kind of want to push back a little as there’s lots of reasons it might just affect someone viewership. Personally I watch foreign films and always choose subtitles to dubbed but there’s a absolutely an added hurdle of disconnection that gives me with the characters and films and I’ll sometimes find myself reading more than watching. It’s an extra track of attention and while I’m sure some people have no problem with that and I have gotten more used to it with time I don’t think it’s an indictment if some people prefer something easier. And then like there’s other reasons. I pick out movies to watch with my mother and I can’t do any subtitles movies because she struggles to keep up with the pace of the reading the whole time. Like I said I’m sure some people reject foreign films out of hand because of ugly ideas and cultural stubbornness. But I dunno. People make films more accessible for a reason and I’m not sure there’s anything wrong with just wanting to relax with a film and let it come to you. And subtitles and language barriers do sometimes provide an extra hurdle.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2023 19:07
|
|
|
M_Sinistrari posted:Not sure if it's changed, but for the longest time M had subtitles that were just white text so you'd have some words blend in with the scene. And while it does help being a fast reader, there has been times where I had to reverse a bit because I missed something on screen because there was a lot of text. I do think that the amount of people who are all 'eww reading...' has dwindled significantly over time, but sometimes especially after a long day you just want to sit back and let the brain go into coast and rest. Yeah. I mean I'm not gonna sit here and list all the possible entirely reasonable reasons why someone would have problems with a subtitled film like bad eyesight or reading slower or a small tv or whatever. But they're there and I just think its dismissive to just default to the idea that everyone who doesn't watch a foreign film is doing it for a damning reason.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2023 21:29
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:When did we start talking about dubs vs subs, exactly? Because I was talking about Quarantine the 100% Americanized remake. You said there was an American remake because “Americans refuse to read subtitles which is a scathing indictment”. And I said there’s plenty of reasons why someone would have trouble reading subtitles or engage more with a film in their own language or where they can understand the words coming out of the characters mouths. And now you’re saying I’m saying there’s no one outside America with such problems or reasons? I’m sorry I ever engaged.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2023 23:44
|
|
|
PKMN Trainer Red posted:This is absolutely bitchin'. It’s an amazing gimmick. Twernt winning the thread.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2023 03:48
|
|
|
 34 (50). Dario Argento’s Dracula aka Dracula 3D (2012) Directed by Dario Argento; Screenplay by Dario Argento, Enrique Cerezo, Stefano Piani, and Antonio Tentori; Based on Dracula by Bram Stoker Watched on Amazon Prime Oof, that was bad. And not fun bad. Not interesting bad. Just really dull and poorly made. Maybe its better in 3D? Maybe the really bad look is some kind of 3D thing? I dunno. I don’t give it that pass. Sort of seeing a bunch of boobs in 3D I just fail to see what this brings to the table at all. I’m not the biggest Argento fan and I know the second half of his career has reaped very questionable rewards but I still just don’t know what the point is of this completely uninspired and poorly made rehash of the classic story. Its completely by the numbers and so blah. And like the majority of this cast is just boring as poo poo and bad. Dracula’s actor is the most boring Dracula in film history. But like I know Asia Argento and Rutger Hauer can act reasonable well. I mean they’re not Oscar winners but they’re more than competent and here they just look like amateurs. That’s on Argento and like just the whole tone of production. I don’t know what the intent here was but it produces something that’s just crap. I wish I had more to say about this but I don’t. Its just bad. There is that CGI Mantis. That was a shock. And there’s plenty of boobs and vampy ladies in bodices if you wanna see them, although they’re not sexy. This film just isn’t able to make them sexy despite their hotness. There’s a vague throwback feel of Hammer or something here but like its just poorly made throwback at best. I dunno. Its just bad. Basebf555 posted:
 - (51). Creep 2 (2017) Directed by Patrick Brice; Written by Mark Duplass and Patrick Brice Watched on Netflix I think I enjoyed this more than the first one. Duplas still plays a very convincing and creep psycho but Desiree Akhavan plays a very effective foil who seems to keep him off his game because she never really reacts the way he expects her to. Of course that's part of the cat and mouse because you can never really tell if Aaron is being in any way shape or form honest. Is he having a meltdown that his plans aren't going the way he wanted? That seems like something he might do. Or is it more manipulation? And Sara feels a lot fuller and more interesting than the dude from the first one. I mean she's making some very bad decisions. A lot of very bad decisions. But she's in control of those decisions, or seems to be. And again that's kind of the rub. You never really get a clear sense of who's in charge here. And that makes for a better dynamic than the simple game in the first one of a psycho playing with his food. It also definitely helps that there's not the weak last act that I felt the first film had. Here we stay focused on the moment and in the dance and any prologue is saved for prologue. So just a better paced affair. I still wouldn't call these my favorite or anything but they're solid mind loving psychological horrors and the kind of horror you can kind of see in the real world. I mean, don't answer creepy classified ads or hang around creepy weirdos in the woods. But unstable monsters like Aaron definitely exist and not only can they just target you for violence without you knowing but it may be hard to tell them apart from the other assholes of the world who just want to make you uncomfortable or ruin your day or can't get out of their own narcissistic bubble. That edgelord goon giving you poo poo could always be a crazy person. Who the gently caress knows? So maybe don't get seeking out weirdos. No matter how much you need the money or views.  35 (52). The Crooked Man (2016) Directed by Jesse Holland; Written by Jeffrey Schenck and Peter Sullivan A pretty not good SyFy original. I've actually seen a couple of decent SyFy movies lately. They're definitely TV movie quality but with some real talent and cleverness behind them. From the sounds of it their Banana Splits movie might be the better of the rash of Five Nights at Freddy's movies. But who knows? Anyway this isn't one of those better movies. This is a derivative little story probably trying to just score viewers as a faux Conjuringverse film. But really not doing anything good or memorable. The Crooked Man himself isn't terrible. I mean he's not good but he's fine. The story is just too bland and dull to care. Its been a day and I've already basically forgotten any details of this film but also remember them because they're all just your super standard ones. Terrible thing happens to kid, kid leaves town, kid comes back grown up, no one likes her, terrible stuff keeps happening, kiss some boy, kill the monster. Some D list celebrities show up for cameos. I mean D here. Michael Jai White, Dina Myer, and Amber Benson. We're just grabbing random Buffy players for our draws here. None of them have any particular presence in the film though and the only thing I can remember about the rest of the cast is that the main girl has a kind of "Jenna Ortega at home" vibe to her. That's probably not remotely fair. Ortega was like on the Disney Channel or something in 2016. But I did doublecheck just to be sure it wasn't here. And that's the extent of interest I had in any of this cast. Yeah, its just a not good film. Not unwatcheable or notably bad or anything. Its more or less what you expect a SyFy movie to be. Tolerable to watch at 2 AM but definitely not worth your time. And yet I think its the 3rd SyFy movie I've watched this October so far. I make bad choices.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2023 07:32
|
|
|
 - (53). The Gate (1987) Directed by Tibor Takács; Written by Michael Nankin Watched on Amazon Prime I guess this traumatized me as a child? To be honest I didn't watch a lot of horror as a kid and its not a category that's easy for me to pick stuff out for. But I definitely remember this making an impression on me as a kid and I definitely haven't seen it in like 20 years or more. And its solid. Maybe not great, but solid. Its funny I realized half way though its got kind of a PG kids safe Evil Dead vibe to it? Its also got the basic 80s kids adventure thing which is always fun. The demons are fun and its always fun to see lots of claymation puppet action. Its fun to see baby Stephen Dorf. Its fun to see an older sister in an 80s movie be nice to her baby brother. I guess I'm saying fun a lot so this was pretty fun. There are an unfortunate number of 80s regular slurs though. That sucks. But otherwise its pretty fun? I suppose I should say I watched this on a really terrible day where I felt like absolute poo poo. So maybe I wasn't in the best place for it. I had fun but also I wasn't really enjoying myself because I was miserable. So not the movie's fault at all. Still, slurs aside its a very fun kid safe horror that still has some bite and meanness. I guess get a TV edit of this would be really for the best to get rid of all those pesky slurs but probably not much else. I don't think you have to censor clay demon gore. But its fun to see and I guess I can see why this left an impression on me as a kid, if not quite trauma. Basebf555 posted:
 36 (53). Stage Fright (2014) Written and directed by Jerome Sable Watched on AmazoN Prime Taste is subjective. Experiences vary. A bunch of people I know were super high on this. I didn't quite know what to expect going in. I watched it because it was on a list of LGBTQ horror but like one gay kiss doesn't feel enough to count it for that. There's not even a real subplot for that. I've seen a bunch of films this month with one gay character or relationship and its great we've reached a point where there's just representation without it being a thing. But it doesn't feel right to call it a "LGBTQ film" for a challenge sadly. But I digress. I also have seen the original giallo film this is... sorta... a remake of? But I don't remember it much. I don't think it was very much like this. So yeah. I imagine if you were a theater kid this would resonate a lot more with you. Its a bit odd. The film's not mocking theater kids. There's jokes about them being cringey and all but the film is clearly made by and for them. The mixture of that with slasher tropes does feel kind of natural, Awkward horny teens at camp and all. But the film doesn't feel like it ever properly merges the two. It feels less like a musical slasher and more like half a musical and half a slasher. There's some bleed through but like one person dies for the first hour of the film. And as someone who really doesn't care for slashers I was suddenly desperate for someone to get slashed. The first hour is really just a LOT of theater camp stuff. Like... a lot. And again... I'm sure there's an audience for that. But I'm not it. Its not unwatcheable or overly bad, although the first 30 minutes were rough. I nearly bailed a few times. But like I settled in I guess. I didn't really enjoy it though. It was kind of a lot of sunken cost. But I also wouldn't say I suffered through this. Not really. I dunno. Its just a vibe and a sense of humor that very much is not me. But like if the idea of a slasher musical at a theater kid camp sounds appealing to you then go for it.  - (54). Secret Window (2004) Directed by David Koepp; Screenplay by David Koepp; Based on Secret Window, Secret Garden by Stephen King Watched on Amazon Prime A very good King thriller. Its King so a lot of the elements will be familiar to his other stuff. Get this, there's a successful writer carrying guilt about something. Its a good solid little story though. A writer going through a personal crisis of his marriage falling apart suddenly gets confronted by this sketchy dude accusing him of plagiarism. And you know, he might have done it. There's a good sense of tension and mystery all along. Did he steal the story? How dangerous is this guy? How is this all tying into his failed marriage? It all feels pretty natural as things play out and twists come. When things go off the rail its very unexpected. Maybe not as crazy and actiony or whatever as some would like but one second its this thriller and the next some werid poo poo is happening. This is before Depp became a caricature of himself (or problematic as hell) so he's actually doing some acting and does a good job. Like he's still kind of Johnny Depp and you get these little hints of Jack Sparrow here and there. But he's doing his job and his natural sketchiness plays right into things. Turturro is great too. Very effectively playing the tough dangerous guy who isn't some muscled freak or cliche bad rear end. Just a dude who looks like he'd do some hosed up poo poo if he decided to. Those are actually scary dudes. Its got a really good deep cast ofo people who don't really done a ton but add to things. A simple setting of isolation that works to sell both Turturro's danger and Depp's questionable mental state. Its not a great movie or top tier King adaptation but its very good, well paced, and definitely on the positive end of the King films. And just a very solid watch.  - Violence Jack: Evil Town (1988) Directed by Ichirô Itano; Written by Shô Aikawa, Ichirô Itano, and Gô Nagai Watched on Internet Archive Under an hour so doesn’t count, but I suffered through it… For no good reason either. So is like this entire manga just designed around mass rape? Is that just its core premise? Some kind of apocalyptic thing happens. There's mutant freaks for some reason. And everyone wants to rape every woman they see? Just really rape and rape and rape. Like come up with entire plots and political games and fight monsters just to rape some more new women! Rape, rape, rape, rape! Bonus gross misogyny for the one female villain who runs around in full clothes except a crotch so we can see her underwear the whole time all so you can watch her urinate through her underwear. And people give Quentin Tarantino poo poo for his foot poo poo always showing up in his movies. Oh and transformative cannibalism and necrophilia? Christ gently caress this poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2023 08:20
|
|
|
That movie promised cartoon demons and then just delivered misogyny and exploitation. I hated that film.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2023 01:21
|
|
|
I grant it’s hardly the worst or most gross movie out there. But I don’t tend to seek out movies of that nature. I came for cartoon demons. Nikumatic posted:What we ended up with was a Surprise Neil Marshall movie I had never even heard of, and wow, does Neil Marshall really want to show you his fetish for torturing young women apparently. Like, there is this beautiful blonde woman out in the middle of the loving dark ages who basically doesn't get a speck of dirt or grime on her for like an hour and twenty minutes of the runtime as she is repeatedly leered at, sexually assaulted, stripped and tortured in public, and oh yeah also has frequent oily sex scenes with a demon while she's being jailed for witchcraft. This movie just felt gross in basically every way.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2023 03:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
Nikumatic posted:Neil Marshall turned into Paul WS Anderson so gradually that we barely even noticed. Neil Marshall. Paul WS Anderson. Rob Zombie. Mike Flanagan. Horror is filled with wife guys.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2023 04:30
|
|