Movies: Horror Movie Discussion

[BostonBob]

Terrifier 3 - 5/10

This was easily the weakest of the three movies I've seen.

If you saw it in the theatre did you get one of these ???

 

[PK Cronin]

If you saw it in the theatre did you get one of these ???

No, and now I'm more upset by not receiving one than I am from anything in the movie.

That's a great little promotional gimmick though.

To just address the supposed public freakout to the gore in this one:

The level of gore and depravity wasn't far off from what we've already seen in the earlier movies so I tend to think the outrage/freakout is manufactured to help drive people to see the film.

Spoiler

What is different from most movies that could get people to say the director crossed a line is that murdering and dismembering teenagers is a perfectly acceptable part of horror movies, doing the same thing to children is generally a no-go. Sure, there are films that show children turn into zombies, demons, etc. or get killed off, but it usually happens rather quickly and/or off screen. That's where Terrifier 3 dared to be different, showing the audience children getting hacked to pieces by an overly excited clown in a Santa Claus outfit.

During the lead up I found myself wondering if they'd actually show it. I was definitely a little turned off by seeing it, but at no point did I think it crossed a line that would make me get up and leave or need to vomit into a bag. It was more of a, "wow, they really don't give a f***" and a "that's uncomfortable to watch" reaction.

Later on in the movie blows up a bunch of children but most of that happens off screen so it wasn't nearly as bad for the viewer.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

I don't get appeal of Terrifier films

I love horror but this shit is just straight up trash and takes torture porn genre that I despise to even lower depths

 

[shadow1]

Friday the Thirteenth: The Last Chapter (ironically in the first half of films in the series) is such a good one, along with Part 3. The "He's killing me!" line is often made fun of online, but I actually think it's a really good one for that character. Nobody knows how they would ever act in a situation like that, and the absurdity and delivery of the line actually add to the realism strange as that may seem.

I was on vacation this past weekend and our cottage had a basement that looked just like the one where that character was killed in the movie. So of course I made myself go down there when it was pitch black with a little flashlight just to scare myself.

In addition to Hausu, which in retrospect I think I enjoy more now than upon first watch, I have also watched The Lighthouse and Mothman Prophecies as additions to this year's spooky season theme of "Atmospheric Horror." I can write reviews on them if people would be interested.

The former was something of a slog to actually get through, but it had some hilarious moments and some really thought provoking moments. It's the kind of movie you need to watch multiple times to get your head around, but frankly it's not very enjoyable (and that's not an insult) so I don't really feel compelled to do so. Thank goodness for YouTube video essays to explain things to me like I was a golden retriever (and that's not a compliment).

The latter was a cool early 2000s movie. It's billed a horror/thriller but I didn't find it scary or thrilling. However, Richard Gere gave us a fine performance and it made me wish Laura Linney broke out as a star earlier than she did. Nothing really special or memorable about the movie, but it has good enough performances from its actors and it's well-crafted. You lot could put much worse movies on your Halloween watch list.

Erich Anderson, Rob from that scene, just passed away from cancer recently. RIP.

 

[shadow1]

Bhoot (2003) - 6/10

A woman is possessed by the spirit of her apartment's previous tenant.

Ajay Devgn and Urmila Matondkar star as Vishal and Swati (respectively), a married couple who move into a high-rise apartment at a ridiculously low price. The reason? The previous tenant killed herself and her son inside the unit. Vishal initially keeps this fact from Swati, as he isn't superstitious. But once she finds out, Swati begins experiencing hallucinations and behaving strangely...

Bhoot was written and directed by Ram Gopal Varma. This was Varma's second horror film (the first being 1992's Raat) and broke a lot of Bollywood formulas, going against type by starring a woman, having no songs, and being relatively short (2 hours long). How does Bhoot fare?

It's pretty good! One of the better things I've seen recently. Bhoot is a very low-budget movie (less than $800K), and you can tell right away from the quality of the camera. It looks almost camcorder-esque... but I think it actually helps the movie. It gives Bhoot somewhat of a unique look, and reminds me a bit of Chungking Express (1994) . The camera quality ultimately doesn't matter because the film is well shot.

And well acted. The leads give good performances, as do Victor Banerjee and Nana Patekar, who were both memorable in their roles as a doctor and police inspector (respectively). This is important because this is a dialogue heavy film. There isn't a ton of set variety due to the low budget, but I was still sucked in to the story. The film does have one scene outside of the usual three or four locations we're stuck in, and I'd argue the scene is great. I'm going to remember it for a long time.

So, why not a higher score? I want to go with a 7, but there are a couple things holding me back from rating Bhoot higher. Firstly, 30 minutes could easily be trimmed and it would help the film. This is a minor spoiler, but there's a side character who has a close family member pass away from a degenerative disease. This subplot is completely pointless and it's handled in a borderline hilarious way considering how fast the character moves on. Worse, it eats up enough screen time that it's worth mentioning as a negative. Additionally, the bigger negative is how quickly the ending comes together. For a film as long as Bhoot, it feels like the movie crams in narrative elements it could've introduced way earlier, and they lose impact as a result.

Overall, Bhoot is a solid ghost story. Though it meanders at times and the ending seems to partially materialize out of thin air, the film has memorable performances and one standout scene. Bhoot earned ₹239M against its ₹67M budget.

Laddaland (2011) - 5/10

A family moves into a new house and begins experiencing paranormal phenomena in the neighborhood.

Saharat Sangkapreecha stars as Thee, who's moved from Bangkok to the gated community Laddaland, where he's purchased and furnished a new house. He's soon joined by wife Parn (Piyathida Mittiraroch), teenage daughter Nan (Sutatta Udomsilp), and and young son Nat (Athipich Chutiwatkajornchai). Thee has a strained relationship with Parn and a very poor relationship with Nan, but hopes this move will be a reset for the family dynamic. However, following a grisly murder within the neighborhood, the family begins experiencing paranormal activity...

Laddaland was directed by Sophon Sakdaphisit and written by Sakdaphisit and Sopana Chaowwiwatkul. The setting, Laddaland, is based on an actual condo development in Chiang Mai, Thailand that is rumored to be haunted. How does it fare?

Ugh... this movie annoyed the crap out of me. Laddaland doesn't feel like a horror movie most of the time; it feels like a character drama surrounding Thee and his family. Here's the problem: Thee and his family are extremely unlikable. Thee is a gullible optimist who fails at almost everything he does because he's an idiot; Parn is a doormat and likely an adulteress; Nan is an angsty teen, but with more venom. Nat is fine, I guess. The point is you don't care about these people. They're probably realistic depictions, but that doesn't make the film entertaining.

I *think* Laddaland was going for subtext about the erosion of the middle class and suburbs, but I'm honestly not sure. If it is, it's not handled well. It's unquestionably a supernatural story, but the movie double dips between the paranormal and the realistic. For example, in one scene Parn notices bruises on her neighbor, obviously implying domestic abuse. If the ghost(s) had done it, it could've been a good allegory for domestic abuse, and made the ghost(s) symbolic of all of the issues struggling families go through. But no, it's later revealed her husband is just a wife-beater.

Yet, there are ghosts in the movie... for some reason. I'm pretty sure I'm on the money about their symbolic purpose in the film. But if I'm not, what I'll say is the ghost/supernatural storyline is half-cooked, with no motive or explanation for their actions. Laddaland has a story to tell, and whether or not it's full of subtext or just straight horror, it's an unenjoyable one capped off by a really crappy ending.

Overall, I didn't enjoy Laddaland. It's unquestionably a well-shot and well-acted movie. I get what it was going for (I think), but for me it was a swing and a miss. Though I couldn't find any budget information, Laddaland earned $5.7M worldwide.

The Town That Dreaded Sundown (1976) - 4/10

Based on a true story, a serial killer stalks the border town of Texarkana in 1946.

This mockumentary film has no stars, but features Ben Johnson as Captain J.D. Morales, a Texas Ranger who is called into to Texarkana after a string of attacks by an unknown assailant. The assailant wears a bag on his head and strikes every 21 days, leaving the citizens of Texarkana afraid to leave their homes...

The Town That Dreaded Sundown was directed by Charles B. Pierce and written by Earl E. Smith. The film is based on a string of real-life 1946 killings, though it takes many creative liberties. The Town That Dreaded Sundown received backlash upon release, and production was sued by a family member of one of the deceased. How does it fare?

It stinks. Having Sundown in the title is good foreshadowing because this is one snoozefest of a movie. The Town That Dreaded Sundown starts off by presenting itself as a documentary. There's voiceover narration presenting facts like dates, names, and places as it tries to paint a picture of what things were like when these attacks occurred. Soon after, we get our first attack, but the scene is mediocre at best.

The film then shifts to the police investigation. None of these officers are memorable or have any character development, and the insight to their tactics is bland. Morales is the most notable of the bunch, but only because he's as red-blooded of an American as there ever was. These police scenes are interlaced with more attacks by the masked killer, which once again are mundane and poorly directed.

If that wasn't bad enough, The Town That Dreaded Sundown begins injecting a significant amount of comedy into the film. One officer in particular becomes the comic relief, and it works about as well as the clown music cops in Halloween 5 (1989). Actually, it's worse because this film is based on true events. Right before the ending, this film has the gall to do what Tombstone (1993) did and tell us where all of these officers eventually ended up, as if we give a shit.

Overall, The Town That Dreaded Sundown is a bad movie. It tries to be a documentary, horror movie, and comedy all at the same time and none of it works. Despite what I think of it, this film has a 6.0 on IMDb and 2.9/5 on Letterboxd, so take this review with a grain of salt. The Town That Dreaded Sundown reportedly earned $5M against its $400K budget.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

For the first time in five years, a local theater where I live is hosting an overnight horror marathon in October. Past versions were 11-12 movies and a full 24 hours. This is a little shorter, 7 movies over 12 hours. It's got a rock 'n' roll/killer soundtrack theme.

Five movies have been announced:
The Lost Boys
Return of the Living Dead
Deathgasm
Trick or Treat
Maximum Overdrive

Final two movies are a surprise that won't be announced until they play. That's a fun element I haven't encountered before. My friends and I have been speculating about what they could be. More literal rock-horror like Slaugherhouse Rock or Black Roses? Music is key to The Lords of Salem. Or something more akin to The Lost Boys or Maximum Overdrive, i.e. horror with memorable soundtracks.

I'll report back.

So this event went down this past weekend. I was one for two on the mystery movies. One of them was Black Roses, which also wound up being the only one of the seven-movie lineup that I hadn't seen before. The other surprise movie was The Gate.

The organizer did such an on-point job that he coordinated the schedule around some of the events in the movies. Return of the Living Dead was timed to end at the time in the movie where it ends. Maximum Overdrive started at the time in the movie where that story starts. There might have been other little organizational easter eggs but those were the two I picked up on.

Of the lineup itself, as I said, I'd seen six of the seven before. Four of them I've seen on the big screen as part of previous horror marathons as well.

Trick or Treat and Return of the Living Dead are fun, reliable crowd pleasers. Deathgasm too though it suffers a bit from that modern horror movie issue of making sure you know the writer-director has seen and likes the same movies you do. It works here at least because it is legit funny.

Haven't seen The Lost Boys in god knows how long but I'd watched it so much when I was young I could still finish most of the lines. Perhaps a product of getting older, I felt for Diane Wiest being a good mom trying to do her best in a way that never resonated with me before. Also, Grandpa just drills three-pointers in every scene he's in including the movie's last line. I wondered if any of the rest of it would diminish for me, but it really didn't.

The Gate is this nice blend of 80s kid-venture and horror. Even has a sneaky bit of heart like the best of 80s kid-venture movies alongside some stop motion monster fun.

Maximum Overdrive starts strong (and hilariously) but drags in a couple of stretches between its big set pieces. I forgot this despite having rewatched it just last year.

Black Roses was the only completely fresh experience for me. It is rock-n-roll horror. It is a tad bit weird and has more than a little good-because-it's-bad elements (some of the acting is a little stiff). But if those elements normally appeal to you then I'm sure you'd enjoy this. I did. It's not a total WTF movie, but it flirts with it.

 

[KingsHockey24]

I don't get appeal of Terrifier films

I love horror but this shit is just straight up trash and takes torture porn genre that I despise to even lower depths

So is it basically like the Saw movies then?

 

[PK Cronin]

So is it basically like the Saw movies then?

It's nothing like the Saw movies.

I don't necessarily agree that it's torture porn, but I understand that take. The director is definitely trying to tell a story and develop the characters, especially in 2 and 3, it just isn't the best execution.

Saw has puzzles and has a detective element to it, where these absolutely do not have that. The tension isn't created by a timer but because the killer is interacting with people in everyday life and nobody knows exactly when shit is going to hit the fan. When it does hit the fan it's absolutely over the top gruesome, and some might say distasteful, but I personally don't think it's torture porn. I think the extended murder scenes do add something to the films and make Art the clown way more, excuse the pun, terrifying.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

So is it basically like the Saw movies then?

It's not torture porn (doesn't mean it's any good). As PK said, it's nothing like Saw (the ones I've seen anyway). The Saw films try to be somewhat clever, Terrifier doesn't. It borrows a lot from the slasher films, had it been made 30 years ago, it would have been a pretty good example of a "splatter film" - not too sure the term is used anymore.

 

[shadow1]

The Twins Effect (2003) - 5/10

A vampire hunter takes on a new partner, while his sister falls in love with a vampire.

Ekin Cheng stars as Reeve, a vampire hunter who works for the Anti-Demon Federation. He's assigned a new partner, Gypsy (Gillian Chung), who's inexperienced and impulsive. Meanwhile, Reeve's lovelorn sister, Helen (Charlene Choi), meets and falls for Kazaf (Edinson Chen). Unknown to Helen, Kazaf is a vampire prince...

The Twins Effect was co-directed by Dante Yam and Donnie Yen (yes, that one), and written by Hing-Ka Chan and Wai-Lun Ng. The film's title comes from the fact that stars Gillian Chung and Charlene Cho were in a band called "The Twins," as there are no twins in the movie. Additionally, there is an alternate cut of this film called Vampire Effect, in which 20 minutes of footage is cut but new scenes are added. How does The Twins Effect fare?

It's okay as star-studded, mindless entertainment. The Twins Effect is comedy-action-horror, in that order. The film starts off focusing on Reeve and Gypsy and has a pretty decent atmospheric opening scene. After that, their plot line is largely pushed to the periphery as the movie instead focuses on the oddball relationship between Helen and Kazaf as the duo tries to navigate the challenges of human and vampire dating. Some of the comedy was cringe, but some of it worked, and I wasn't bored.

When the film finally does get back to Reeve and Gypsy's mission, I was perplexed as to who the villain was and what they were trying to accomplish. I talk about one-dimensional characters a lot, but the villain in this film, The Duke (Mickey Hardt), set the bar even lower. The ending, which is easily the worst part of the movie, has some dire special effects. It really hurt the overall product, even more so because I thought the visuals were one of the stand-out parts of The Twins Effect. There are some unique camera angles at times, and it has that early-2000's look (that I used to dislike but has really grown on me).

But I'm burying the lead. Yes, Jackie Chan is in this movie. Yes, his scenes are the best part of the movie. I was actually surprised that he was in two scenes. His action scene in this movie is well known, but there was also a roughly 10-minute comedy scene involving Chan. Based on the first scene, I thought he was playing a fictionalized version of himself, but actually he's just some random ambulance driver with extremely athleticism/Jackie Chan-powers and is named Jackie. All-in-all, Jackie's probably in a solid 15-20 minutes of this movie, which is even more than Anthony Wong, another very famous actor whose character is integral to the plot, yet pretty much only appears at the beginning and end of the film. I watched the "Vampire Effect" version, so I'm guessing the "Twins" version is more coherent but with less Jackie. Not that I had a choice, but you know which version I'd have chosen (is this movie going to reignite my Jackie Chan film review series? I hope not).

Overall, The Twins Effect/Vampire Effect is a flawed popcorn movie. What starts off as an interesting action-horror film morphs into a quirky romance movie, and it all ends up being overshadowed by the weight of Jackie Chan's star. The Twins Effect was Hong Kong's biggest movie of 2003, earning $3.8M. It was followed by a sequel, The Twins Effect II, in 2004.

 

[CDJ]

I don't get appeal of Terrifier films

I love horror but this shit is just straight up trash and takes torture porn genre that I despise to even lower depths

The practical effects are sensational and I think David Howard Thornton does great physical acting

If i am looking for a good movie it wouldn’t be my first place to look though- still I find them very watchable. Don’t think it’s like Saw or Hostel at all beyond having intense gore, very different kind of vibes. It’s hard to describe the Terrifier series- like they for sure aren’t comedies but there’s an unserious nature to everything. I think that’s in large part due to the work Thornton does. I feel far more dread when watching Hostel and more suspense when im watching Saw.

 

[John Price]

Watched through Child's Play (1988) for the first time it's pretty humorous despite all the innocent people getting killed

To be fair he going after his partner was warranted, guy bailed on him lol

"He also said Aunt Maggie was a bitch and got what she deserved."

 

[CDJ]

Watched through Child's Play (1988) for the first time it's pretty humorous despite all the innocent people getting killed

To be fair he going after his partner was warranted, guy bailed on him lol

"He also said Aunt Maggie was a bitch and got what she deserved."

Brad Dourif is awesome. Perfect voice for Chucky. Sneaky awesome resume too- Child’s Play, One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, Mississippi Burning, Alien Resurrection, the final 2 Lord of the Rings movies, RobZombie Halloween, and a bunch of prominent TV appearances

Not bad for a guy whose known for voicing a doll

 

[Dubi Doo]

Slightly off topic, but is there any show that's as scary or scarier than The Haunting of Hill House?

 

[Indrid Cold]

Slightly off topic, but is there any show that's as scary or scarier than The Haunting of Hill House?

Probably not, but maybe check out The Terror? It's not so much scary as the tension and anticipation are off the charts. Great cast with Jared Harris, Ciaran Hinds and Menzies.

 

[Satans Hockey]

The practical effects are sensational and I think David Howard Thornton does great physical acting

If i am looking for a good movie it wouldn’t be my first place to look though- still I find them very watchable. Don’t think it’s like Saw or Hostel at all beyond having intense gore, very different kind of vibes. It’s hard to describe the Terrifier series- like they for sure aren’t comedies but there’s an unserious nature to everything. I think that’s in large part due to the work Thornton does. I feel far more dread when watching Hostel and more suspense when im watching Saw.

I forgot where I saw someone say it and I'm only halfway through the first movie but I saw someone say that Art the clown is basically a horror/murderer version of Mr. Bean and I can't unsee it now lol

 

[The Marquis]

Climax, a French film directed by Gaspar Noe was friggin tremendous. Get through the performance art of the first half of the film and you're treated to a one of a kind glorious nightmare.

 

[shadow1]

C.H.U.D. (1984) - 6/10

A rash of disappearances in New York City seems to be tied to the sewer system.

This ensemble cast features John Heard and Kim Greist as photographer-and-model couple George and Lauren (respectively) living in New York City. George is working on a project that focuses on the city's homeless population and is aghast when a badly wounded homeless man seeks his help in acquiring a firearm. Meanwhile, police Captain Bosch (Christopher Curry) is dealing with a wave of missing persons cases, and is being asked to cover them up by his superiors. Unable to turn away any longer, Bosch seeks help from A.J. "The Reverend" Shepherd (Daniel Stern), a homeless shelter cook who has information that the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) has been operating in the sewers for weeks...

C.H.U.D. was directed by Douglas Cheek and written by Shepard Abbott and Parnell Hall. The film was shot in New York City, with some sources suggesting the film was inspired by news reports of alligators living in the NYC sewers. How does C.H.U.D. fare?

I can't believe it's taken me this long to watch this film. I remember almost buying it from Circuit City when I was in middle or high school, but for whatever reason it's alluded me until now. Having now seen it, as evidenced by my score, I think it's a pretty good movie. The creature design is a standout, as is the acting. The main cast is really good, with Daniel Stern stealing the show. This film takes place before he tries to steal John Heard's kid, obviously. There were also a lot of familiar faces in bit parts, like John Goodman, Sam McMurray, and Patricia Richardson.

C.H.U.D. has an "A" and "B" plot. The "A" focuses on George and Lauren, and more specifically George's photography project. But really, without spoiling it, this plot doesn't go anywhere. George and Lauren are kinda pushed to the side until act three, as the film instead focuses on Bosch's battle with police bureaucracy and his off-the-books investigation with Shepherd. This is the plot line where we learn what's going on in the sewers and the plan to stop it all.

And the movie is interesting, don't get me wrong. But my major critique would be that there's not a ton of horror in this film. There's some horror eventually, but C.H.U.D. feels like all set up and little payoff. It never feels like "oh my god, what are we going to do?"; it's more like "we know what we're going to do, but we can't let the citizens of NYC know." This is a film where the humans are the bad guys, which is disappointing considering the cool look of the creatures. I also thought one character was way too calm about a significant member of his family going missing, but that's a nitpick.

Overall, C.H.U.D. is a good science fiction horror movie. It didn't do much in theaters and bombed critically, but has since gone on to be a cult hit, inspiring films like Us (2019) and being referenced in shows like Archer, Castle, and The Simpsons. C.H.U.D. earned $4.6M against its $1.25M budget.

Kill, Baby... Kill (1966) - 6/10

In the early 1900's, a doctor is summoned to a small village to conduct an autopsy, but the superstitious residents want him to leave.

Giacomo Rossi Stuart stars as Dr. Paul Eswai, who is requested by police to conduct an autopsy in the village of Karmingam. The residents of the town are cold and dismissive to Eswai, but he's assisted in the autopsy by Monica (Erika Blanc), a med student who's only recently returned to the area and also notices the bizarre behavior of the village. After an unexplainable discovery during the autopsy, Eswai learns that the residents believe they're being haunted by the ghost of a local dead girl...

Kill, Baby... Kill was directed by Mario Bava, and written by Bava, Romano Migliorini, Roberto Natale. The film was improvised from a script of only 30 pages, and was the first Bava film to star Italian actors. As it was distributed by a small company, Bava had more creative control compared to his previous works. How does Kill, Baby... Kill fare?

This review may be libelous, as I'm decidedly lower than the community on KBK. I think this is the first Bava film I've seen that I've given lower than a "7", but this film didn't do it for me as far as being one of his best works. It's a fine movie, with a classic 1960's look and good atmosphere. Early on, KBK is able to convey a sense of foreboding about what's going on beneath the surface at this village.

But it never does anything much with it. There are a couple of cool scenes here or there, my favorite of which being the "repeating room" scene. But for the most part, I didn't think there was a lot of meat on the bone. Dr. Eswai is your classic fish-out-of-water, but he has no influence on the events at hand. It reminds me of Children of the Corn (1984) in the sense that the main events would go down almost exactly the same way if you removed the main character from the movie.

Another movie I was reminded of was The City of the Dead (1960). The plots are a lot different, but the premise of an outsider ending up in a town where something is amiss were similar. I haven't seen The City of the Dead in a while, so if my memory is off then forgive me, but I found that film to be better because of how it handles the underbelly of the town. In that movie, like the main character, you're left in the dark almost the entire movie. By comparison, in KBK, you almost always know more than Dr. Eswai, which doesn't do the tension any favors.

Overall, Kill, Baby... Kill is style over substance. It has that moody, atmospheric look you might've seen in films like Black Sabbath (1963) or House of Usher (1960). But unlike those films, I didn't think there was enough horror or story to elevate the film higher than my rating. I'm roughly a full star worse than IMDb and Letterboxd, and Martin Scorcese once called this Bava's best film, so take this review with a grain of salt. Kill, Baby... Kill earned $113K against its $50K budget.

Black Sunday (1960) - 6/10

Two centuries after being executed, a witch seeks revenge on the descendants of her executioners.

Barbara Steele stars as Asa, a vampiric witch who's executed in the 1600s by her own brother. Before her death, she uses sorcery to curse her family's bloodline. Two hundred years later, two doctors - Dr. Andrej Gorobec (John Richardson) and Dr. Choma Kruvajan (Andrea Checci) - stumble across and open up her tomb, freeing her spirit. Asa's spirit begins tormenting her descendants, with her sights set on possessing look-alike Katia (also Barbara Steele)...

Black Sunday was written and directed by Mario Bava, and was based on the story Viy by Nikolai Gogol. This was the first film written or directed by Bava, who had previously spent decades working as a cinematographer. The film was inspired by the success of Horror of Dracula (1958), and was released as "The Mask of the Devil" in Italy to capitalize on the commercial success of 1953's House of Wax ("The Wax Mask") and 1957's The Curse of Frankenstein ("The Mask of Frankenstein"). How does Black Sunday fare?

...Ok, so two "6's" for Bava this morning. I liked it better than Kill, Baby... Kill, but I'm going to continue tarnishing my reputation in this post. It was interesting to learn of The Horror of Dracula roots because that's exactly what Black Sunday reminded me of while watching it. Like vampirism, Asa's curse can be passed around from person to person, so Black Sunday deals with different characters becoming infected and the doctors trying to cure them. The big difference is the doctors have no clue what's going on, unlike Van Helsing.

I thought the opening scene, set in the 1600's, was great - a 10/10 - and I thought there were a number of moody scenes along the way. One scene in particular that has that great gothic look is a suspenseful carriage ride in the middle of the film. The movie looks great overall, which is its greatest strength. As for the plot, it started off okay, but I felt things progressively lost steam as the movie wore on. Without going into specifics, the story starts getting stale and losing momentum, and the end of the film is anticlimactic - especially when contrasted with the opening scene.

Overall, Black Sunday is also style over substance. It's a good movie, but not as good as the promise of its opening scene. In my eyes, this is "Diet" Horror of Dracula. But my eyes may be deceiving me, as both IMDb and Letterboxd are a healthy 1-1.5 stars higher than me. Black Sunday is considered to be an extremely influential film, largely due to its opening scene, so once again take this review with a grain of salt. Black Sunday's budget is believed to be between $60K-$100K, and it reportedly earned $78K.

 

[Juve]

Tony the Pimp from the Demoni is by far the best character in a horror movie of all time.

"Tony, I want some popcorn"
"Shut up you stupid bitch!"

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Tony the Pimp from the Demoni is by far the best character in a horror movie of all time.

"Tony, I want some popcorn"
"Shut up you stupid bitch!"

SMASH EVERYTHING

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Watched The Faculty (1998) for no discernable reason. I dug it.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

One of my October traditions these last few years has been to make my way through a season of the old Tales from the Crypt TV show. I'm up to season 5 this year. My thoughts are pretty repetitive to the last few times I've posted about it. There's certainly a nostalgia component to these for me as I was perfectly in the wheelhouse for its blend of horror and violence and sex and comedy. It all holds up pretty well though. There's a broad moral center to most of these stories ... the bad people often meet their doom in amusing, gruesome and ironic ways.

But the thing I've really enjoyed in these revisits is how these small stories are a fun showcase for actors, writers and directors. Sometimes it's character actors that get to take the main stage for 30 minutes (like Clancy Brown, Hector Elizondo or Brad Dourif among many others in this season). Sometimes it's actors who get to play wildly against type, like perpetual good guys Sam Waterston or Ernie Hudson who get to play real sleazo scumbags in different stories here. Or cool guy Billy Zane playing a bumbling goof. Nerdy Ed Begley Jr. playing a sex hound traveling salesman. Bill Paxton plays a hot-tempered yokel ... oh wait, he's actually done that before.

And then there's just more standard issue oddities like Roger Daltry and a before-he-was-famous Steve Buscemi playing rival war photographers or Tim Curry pulling a Nutty Professor and playing three members of a particularly gnarly family.

Finally, the behind-the-scenes is usually interesting as well as the series was a proving ground for younger directors and writers who'd go onto gtreater acclaim (Gary Fleder, Jeffrey Boam, Scott Rosenberg, Andrew Kevin Walker), while also allowing actors to try their hands behind the camera (Kyle MacLaughlin in this season, but Tom Hanks, Arnold Schwarzenegger, others in past seasons).

Just a good, fun time.

 

[shadow1]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1992) - 6/10

A high schooler becomes a vampire slayer.

Kristy Swanson stars as Buffy, a well-off teenage high school cheerleader and gymnast. She's approached by Merrick (Donald Sutherland) with a crazy story: she's the chosen one who's destined to stop the vampire uprising. Buffy naturally doesn't believe this, but once Merrick can describe her vivid dreams in great detail, Buffy accepts the unbelievable. Merrick quickly works to train Buffy, as Lothos (Rutger Hauer) and his gang of vampires led by Amilyn (Paul Reubens) have their sights set on the young cheerleader...

Buffy the Vampire Slayer was directed by Fran Rubel Kuzui and written by Joss Whedon. The film had a troubled production, with 20th Century Fox removing the darker elements of Whedon's script to the writer's dismay. Rubel Kuzui further pushed the film in the direction of comedy, leading Whedon to walk off set. How does Buffy the Vampire Slayer fare?

It's a popcorn flick... Skinny Pop to be precise. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is all about the comedy bits, the overwhelming early-1990s fashion, and the impressive cast. In addition to the aforementioned players, Buffy also features David Arquette, (Halloween 4's) Sasha Jenson, Thomas Jane, Luke Perry, Stephen Root, and Hillary Swank in supporting roles, with cameos from Ben Affleck, Alexis Arquette, Ricki Lake, and Seth Green.

It's quite the cast. Though some of them (like Rutger Hauer) don't have much to do, the cast is good overall. Most notable is Paul Reubens, who is a riot and gives a hilarious performance as Amilyn. The cast is what props up (saves?) Buffy the Vampire Slayer because this movie has an extremely thin plot. Merrick finds Buffy, trains her, and in the blink of an eye the climax is starting. This film doesn't have proper buildup, partially due to how underdeveloped the antagonists are. This is a movie that's about the ride, not the destination. If you can enjoy the aesthetics and comedy, you'll enjoy the movie.

Overall, Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a fun movie with a notable cast. This is a really light "6" for me because there seriously isn't a lot of meat on the bone in this one. But I credit Paul Ruebens with the extra half-star because his performance was memorable. Buffy the Vampire Slayer earned $16.6M against its $7M budget and was eventually adapted into a long-running (and much more popular) TV series of the same name (1997-2003).

Pin (1988) - 7/10

An isolated youth finds comfort in a medical dummy.

David Hewlett stars as Leon, who along with sister Ursula (Cynthia Preston) are the children of two unusual parents - a regimented doctor (Terry O'Quinn) and a clean freak housewife (Bronwen Mantel). The siblings find solace in each other and also in Pin (voiced by Jonathan Banks), a medical dummy in their father's office. Dr. Banks knows ventriloquism and uses Pin to teach his children various medical lessons. For Leon, the isolated lifestyle eventually becomes too much for him, and he forms an obsession with the dummy...

Pin was wirtten and directed by Sandor Stern. The film is based Andrew Neiderman's 1981 novel of the same name. Neiderman is also known for writing The Devil's Advocate, which was later adapted into a 1997 film starring Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves. Stern, who was previously a doctor himself, took interest in the plot due to its focus on a medical dummy. The film was scheduled to be the final New Worlds Production to hit theaters, but at the last second was pulled and was released direct-to-video instead. How does Pin fare?

Really well. Pin is a psychological slow burn of a movie, with many disturbing elements and deeply unsettling scenes. None of this has to do with the doll itself. The scenes that make the audience uneasy instead tackle real-life issues, like emotional abuse, mental illness, and sexuality. Pin (the medical dummy) is just a plot device helping to tie all of this together.

Being vague, though this is a horror movie, there's not a lot of outright horror. There are some creepy scenes, but as mentioned, a lot of that comes from how unsettling certain situations are. Pin (the film title) is a character-driven story, and a lot of the time the audience is likely feeling pity more than fear.

I do have one small critique. There's a scene where a character (sorry for the vagueness) witnesses something and it seems to rattle them to their core. Though it is unsettling, logically that character should've had an idea/been clued into the situation based on previous events in the film. It's a small nitpick, but a nitpick nonetheless.

Overall, Pin was a very good movie. I'm on the fence about whether my rating is too low, so this one has the potential to go up after repeat viewings. My review is purposely vague and I recommend this hidden gem of a movie, though it's not necessarily the greatest choice as a Halloween season watch. I couldn't find any budget or earnings information for this direct-to-video (Canadian) movie.

The Castle of the Living Dead (1964) - 4/10

In the early 19th century, a theater troupe is hired to perform at a mysterious castle.

This ensemble cast includes Antonio De Martino, Gaia Germani, Philippe Leroy, and Luciano Pigozzi as a group of traveling performers known for a hanging act. The group is invited to the Castle of Count Drago (Christopher Lee), but along the way tensions bubble over and one of the members flees the group. When tragedy strikes during their act for Drago, the group has to figure out if Drago, their departed member, or a mysterious witch (Donald Sutherland) camped outside the castle is responsible...

The Castle of the Living Dead was written and directed by Warren Kiefer. Kiefer, an American, moved to Italy and met another American, producer Paul Maslasnky. The two came up with the idea for this script, cobbling enough money together to make the film and cast horror legend Christopher Lee. Some sources say Mario Bava created an unused special effect for this movie. How does The Castle of the Living Dead fare?

Pee-ew! This one was a stinker. I'm always down for a Christopher Lee film, and I had never heard of this one. The cherry on top is this was Donald Sutherland's first credited role, and it's a dual-gender, triple role at that - playing a police officer, an old man, and an old witch. Add in a big castle and a moody black-and-white look, and what could go wrong?

Well, let's just say my description of the synopsis was basically a creative writing exercise. Everything I said was absolutely true, but I dialed the mystique up by about 1000%. The audience finds out right away who's responsible, and the only reason our protagonists can't is because they're the densest people on the face of the planet. The Castle of the Living Dead has neither suspense nor mystery; it's just a series of boring events that eventually reach their predictable conclusion.

And even then, much of the story doesn't make sense. The motivations of the antagonists are non-sensical, as is how slowly they act on them given the room-temperature IQs of our heroes. I'm still trying to figure out why the witch character needed to be a witch, though Sutherland gives a good performance, I guess. In one unintentionally hilarious scene, a cat dies, and the way it's directed is the camera freezes on a still frame of the cat. The still frame is slightly blurry (the cat was moving when the frame froze), and one of the unlucky performers has to pour their heart out juxtaposed against the hilarious frozen cat image. It's pretty close to this famous Simpsons scene. Anyway, I could continue to land body blows on this thing, but I'll just leave it at this: I recommend this film if you're having trouble sleeping.

Overall, The Castle of the Living Dead is sadly not a hidden Christopher Lee gem. It's a by-the-numbers movie with a beginning, middle, and end that's easy to follow but dull and predictable. The Castle of the Living Dead reportedly did not lose money against its estimated $135K budget.

 

[Osprey]

Street Trash (1987) - 6/10

When inner-city hobos get their hands on bottles of Prohibition-era alcohol, all of their troubles melt away, along with their bodies. The film illustrates the plight of the homeless in America and the dangers of unregulated alcohol sales. It also lives up to its name. This is one trashy movie (literally, as it takes place largely around a junkyard), yet it looks better than a lot of big-budget movies from the 80s. The great picture, camerawork and special effects all made it far more watchable than it had any business being. I didn't think that I'd like the bright, multi-colored gore, but it suits the movie by being absurd rather than shocking. In fact, there's a lot that could've been tasteless if it wasn't played for laughs, instead. And I have to admit that I did laugh quite a bit. There's hardly a plot, but it doesn't matter too much when the individual scenes are amusing. It took me a year to get around to this movie after Pranzo recommended it because I wasn't sure if I'd like it and I feel great shame that I ever doubted him.

---

Bad Taste (1987) - 6/10

Aliens posing as humans invade the New Zealand countryside to turn the locals into hamburger meat. Now this is more what I expected from a first-time filmmaker. It looks like a home movie shot on the cheapest film stock with ancient, second-hand equipment and starring a bunch of non-actor friends on the weekend... because it is. You probably wouldn't have guessed in 1987 that the wannabe filmmaker behind it, Peter Jackson, would win Best Director only 15 years later. In addition to writing and directing, he also stars in dual roles. I recognized him immediately as one of the principle zombie-like aliens (since it's just his normal look), but actually went the whole movie without recognizing him as the main hero (above), due to the fact that he cut his hair, shaved off his beard and wore glasses. He also did all of the makeup and effects, including some gore that's pretty good for having no experience or money. The action and humor are surprisingly decent, as well. There's barely a plot and the acting is bad, but the fun that everyone seems to be having making a home movie is a bit infectious and it's ultimately impressive that it's as watchable as it is.

 

[shadow1]

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) - 8/10

A murderer runs rampant during a town fair.

Friedrich Feher and Hans Heinrich von Twardowski star as Francis and Alan (respectively), two friends who are competing over Jane (Lil Dagover). They visit a town fair that features the mysterious Dr. Caligari (Werner Krauss) and his strange assistant Cesare (Conrad Veidt). After a murder, the group begins investigating Caligari and Cesare, believing them to be responsible...

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was directed by Robert Wiene and written by Hans Janowitz and Carl Mayer. Janowitz and Mayer, two non-writers, met post-WWI and bonded over their anti-war views. The film was shot exclusively in a studio, and due to the limited sets, Wiene had to use creative camera work and set backgrounds that were painted. How does The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari fare?

This is a really difficult movie for me to review. Part of that is because the version I watched on PLEX looked horrendous (I later found cleaned-up versions on Youtube, albeit with different music and colorized). The other part of that is this is a 104-year-old silent film. That's not to say my smooth brain couldn't handle that. But I found myself analyzing it more from a historical lens than I would something like Dracula (1931).

From that point of view, it was interesting to see a lot of the narrative techniques used. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari uses things like flashbacks, foreshadowing, and even contains a huge twist or two. I don't know why seeing those things surprised me (it's not as if this film was the dawn of storytelling), but it was interesting to see nevertheless. The key standout from the film is the sets. The painted distorted backgrounds are the stuff of nightmares. There's a clear influence on films that would come later, with Tim Burton in particular coming to mind.

Overall, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is an influential classic that I can't review properly. For me, it was more academic exercise than something I could turn my brain off and enjoy. Take this review with a grain of salt. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari earned $9.2K against its $18K budget.

Kaun? (1999) - 7/10

During a thunderstorm and with a serial killer on the loose, a woman's doorbell rings.

Urmila Matondkar stars as an unnamed woman/Ma'am, a single woman who is passing the time at home during a thunderstorm. After hearing a news report about a serial killer, the doorbell rings. Outside is Sameer (Manoj Bajpayee), a businessman who says he was sent to the house to meet with his business partner Mr. Malhotra. The woman tells him he has the wrong address, but trapped in the pouring rain and claiming to have locked himself out of his car, Semeer becomes more insistent on being let inside...

Kaun? was directed by Ram Gopal Varma and written by Anurag Kashyap. Varma, mostly known as a romantic director, went against type directing this horror movie, which was shot in only one location and filmed in 15 days. How does Kaun? fare?

Essentially, this is a much better version of When a Stranger Calls (1979). Don't get me wrong; What a Stranger Calls has a classic opening 20 minutes, but the rest of the film is below-average filler. With Kaun?, the premise of a creepy stranger is stretched over an entire runtime, and it's executed very well. The film is suspenseful and unnerving from start to finish.

You might wonder how the premise in question could be stretched over an entire 90+ minute run time. Well, Kaun? has a lot of twists and turns along the way. This movie isn't cut and dry. The filmmakers are constantly messing with your head, making you question how events went down. It's a simple premise that they do a lot with. The performances are outstanding, particularly Manoj Bajpayee. He's memorable as the creepy and neurotic Sameer.

I feel like this is another movie I should bump up a star (as I mentioned with 1988's Pin), but I want to let it marinate longer. I do think there are some minor things I take issue with, but all of them come towards the end of the film, so I won't discuss them. The ending is very good, and most of my complaints are of the nitpick variety, so don't let my comment steer you away.

Overall, Kaun? is great. I had never heard of this movie, and it was blind luck that I watched it (I had sat down to watch something else that I thought was available but wasn't and randomly found this film). If you're a fan of either of the 'Stranger Calls' movies, this one is a must-watch. But I recommend it to almost any horror fan in general. I couldn't find any budget or earnings information for Kaun?.

StageFright (1987) - 7/10

Hoot.