Movies: Horror Movie Discussion

[shadow1]

Cult of Chucky (2017) - 5/10

Kill doll Chucky invades a mental institution to finish off an old adversary.

Fiona Dourif returns as Nica, who following the traumatic events of the previous film is now a patient at a mental institution. As she tries to regain control of her sanity, the institution is shipped a Good Guys doll, which Nica is convinced is Chucky (Brad Dourif). Her doctor, Dr. Foley (Michael Therriault) thinks keeping the doll around will be good for her treatment, but Nica sets out to prove the doll is Chucky. Elsewhere, Andy Barclay (Alex Vincent), the childhood survivor of Chucky's initial reign of terror, sets out to free Nica. He knows she's innocent and can prove it, as he has possession of Chucky's severed - but living - head...

Cult of Chucky was once again written and directed by Don Mancini. The follow-up to Curse of Chucky (2013), Cult of Chucky brings to life some concepts and ideas Mancini originally had for Chucky 3 (1991), but was unable to do at the time due to that film's tight development schedule. How does Cult of Chucky fare?

It's a mixed bag...which irritates me more than it should because the first half of this movie is legitimately good. Setting a horror movie in a mental institution is far from an original concept, but it fits like a glove for a series about a killer doll. I think it would be the most realistic outcome if the average schmoe survived an encounter with Chucky and then had to explain the pile of dead bodies in their vicinity.

I think Cult of Chucky uses the setting well. The film throws some curveballs the audience's way, at times taking things a more psychological route and even introducing mystery elements at one point in the movie. Unfortunately, towards the middle of the film, things start to run out of steam. The main events start coming to a crawl, instead replaced by a new subplot or two that do not further the story...or accomplish anything at all really, aside from padding the run time. And frankly, this movie has a massive flaw: the film would be over if anyone checked the security cameras. There is a throwaway line towards the end that implies there aren't any security cameras, but that makes absolutely zero sense.

You can probably tell from the synopsis, but Cult of Chucky has "A" (Nica) and "B" (Andy) plots. The Nica plot gets the overwhelming majority of the screen time, which makes the Andy plot feel tacked on. The two storylines inevitably intersect, but meshing the two together doesn't accomplish a whole heck of a lot. I've used this analogy before, but this film is this meme. The end of this movie is an unsatisfying mess, and is only partially saved by strong gore. I find it a little ironic that Cult of Chucky's concept was originally intended for Child's Play 3 considering the films are inverses of each other in terms of quality (with the latter having a strong ending after an awful start to the movie). It's also worth noting that the film starts off as a straightforward horror piece, but progressively becomes more comedic towards the end of the film. It's like a microcosm of the series.

Seeing how crappy the end of this movie is, I'm going to complain about the lighting again. It insists upon itself. The nighttime/dark scenes look amazing, but the daylight scenes look amateurish, which is counterintuitive. There's one scene in particular where two people are driving (separate cars) and talking to each other on the phone which looks like Youtube video quality. Also, being vague, there's one major acting performance which is pretty rough. To be fair to the performer, they don't get many scenes with actual people (i.e. talking on a phone, or to Chucky). But nevertheless, it's a distractingly wooden performance.

Overall, Cult of Chucky is one of the weaker entries in the Child's Play series. It's the Lost (2004-2010) of Chucky movies: it starts out well and generates intrigue, only to do nothing interesting with its concept. Word to the wise: Curse of Chucky and Cult of Chucky both have post credit scenes, and both are cut out by Netflix. If you don't watch the Curse of Chucky scene on Youtube, you'll have no clue what's going on at the start of this film. Cult of Chucky, the final film in the main Child's Play continuity, was released direct-to-video and earned $2.3M in its first month of sales.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Kicked off the month with an anthology of anthologies.

Tales from the Darkside. I could research this to check, but I BELIEVE this was originally intended to be Creepshow 3 but somehow morphed into this (probably because of rights issues or something?). Vibe is essentially the same so that story checks out in my mind. I also think Tales from the Crypt was up and running at this time and these really feel like they could've easily been episodes from that series too. Makes sense too. Since Creepshow was directly inspired by the old EC Comics. Fun to see pre-fame Steve Buscemi and Julianne Moore though I probably like tales two (cat) and three (gargoyle) the best. The wraparound has the benefit of staring Deborah Harry who'd I'd let her chain me up in her kitchen any day, but it's so lazy they actually just call it "The Wraparound Story."

Tales from the Crypt (1972). Interesting attempt to take the dark humor of EC Comics, but infused with a little Brit-horror class. Mixed bag. I liked this early take on And All Through the House, though it's done much better in the series' first season. Peter Cushing turns in a really effective performance as a kind, poor old man whose rich neighbors are trying to run out of town. It really hit me. There's enough classic EC Comics comeuppance but it still tries to be a bit too tony for me to fully love it. And I understand it was a different time but the dead-serious bastard in this is #NotMyCryptKeeper.

Trick r' Treat. Thought this is a delightful take on a horror anthology story. You get five stories set in one town on Halloween night but instead of the normal format of "now we tell this tale" they all sorta weave in and out of each other in fun ways. Time shifts forward and back so random early moments make more sense later. I also love how there are rules at play, but it doesn't beat you over the head with it and I think Sam is a fun creation that I'd be happy to see more of.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Kicked off the month with an anthology of anthologies.

Tales from the Darkside. I could research this to check, but I BELIEVE this was originally intended to be Creepshow 3 but somehow morphed into this (probably because of rights issues or something?). Vibe is essentially the same so that story checks out in my mind. I also think Tales from the Crypt was up and running at this time and these really feel like they could've easily been episodes from that series too. Makes sense too. Since Creepshow was directly inspired by the old EC Comics. Fun to see pre-fame Steve Buscemi and Julianne Moore though I probably like tales two (cat) and three (gargoyle) the best. The wraparound has the benefit of staring Deborah Harry who'd I'd let her chain me up in her kitchen any day, but it's so lazy they actually just call it "The Wraparound Story."

Tales from the Crypt (1972). Interesting attempt to take the dark humor of EC Comics, but infused with a little Brit-horror class. Mixed bag. I liked this early take on And All Through the House, though it's done much better in the series' first season. Peter Cushing turns in a really effective performance as a kind, poor old man whose rich neighbors are trying to run out of town. It really hit me. There's enough classic EC Comics comeuppance but it still tries to be a bit too tony for me to fully love it. And I understand it was a different time but the dead-serious bastard in this is #NotMyCryptKeeper.

Trick r' Treat. Thought this is a delightful take on a horror anthology story. You get five stories set in one town on Halloween night but instead of the normal format of "now we tell this tale" they all sorta weave in and out of each other in fun ways. Time shifts forward and back so random early moments make more sense later. I also love how there are rules at play, but it doesn't beat you over the head with it and I think Sam is a fun creation that I'd be happy to see more of.

Re: Tales From the Darkside/Creepshow 3 ... so my curiosity got me and I did look it up. The Darkside movie is only Creepshow 3 in a spiritual sense. Never officially, though Cat from Hell was originally supposed to be part of Creepshow 2.

BUT the Tales from the Darkside TV show did result from an attempt by George Romero to create a Creepshow TV series in the wake of the first movie. There were rights issues that stopped that so the horror anthology show became the newly christened Tales from the Darkside instead.

So, in conclusion, a little from column A, a little from column B.

 

[shadow1]

Re: Tales From the Darkside/Creepshow 3 ... so my curiosity got me and I did look it up. The Darkside movie is only Creepshow 3 in a spiritual sense. Never officially, though Cat from Hell was originally supposed to be part of Creepshow 2.

BUT the Tales from the Darkside TV show did result from an attempt by George Romero to create a Creepshow TV series in the wake of the first movie. There were rights issues that stopped that so the horror anthology show became the newly christened Tales from the Darkside instead.

So, in conclusion, a little from column A, a little from column B.

Interesting history, I didn't know that. Fortunately, we still got a Creepshow 3, which is a masterpiece(ofsomething)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478125/

 

[PB37]

Just finished the new Salem's Lot remake.

I'm trying not to come at this as a fan of Stephen King but Salems Lot is one of my top 3 books of all time so it's really hard.

I think overall, the movie is enjoyable if you've never read the book. But if you have, it's hard not to overlook the lack of layering in world building the book has so well. The sense of impending doom you feel reading the book only comes in brief spurts in the movie. The acting is a little wooden and sometimes goofy - they didn't really sell me that they were into their characters. I liked the depiction of the Mark Petrie character but everyone else felt shallow. Of course, there's the factor of condensing a near perfect book into a 2 hour movie that limits what they can do but damnit... I wish this movie was more than it was.

I think it's worth the watch in your spooky season playlist but go into it with the mindset of being entertained and not a page for page adaptation.

 

[shadow1]

Child's Play (2019) - 5/10

A 13-year-old is tormented by a malfunctioning doll.

Gabriel Bateman stars as Andy, a young loner who, along with his mother Karen (Aubrey Plaza), has just moved into a new slightly rundown apartment building. As Andy struggles to make friends, Karen gets him a futurist "Buddi" doll named Chucky (Mark Hamill) to cheer him up. This works immediately, not only giving Andy a close companion, but also helping him make friends in the building. One problem - an overworked employee turned off all of Chucky's safeguards before it left the factory, meaning the doll will do anything to be Andy's friend 'till the end...

Child's Play was directed by Lars Klevberg and written by Tyler Burton Smith. A remake of the 1988 film of the same name, this film had some production drama behind the scenes. Universal, which owns the rights to the Child's Play sequels, had already greenlit a TV series, Chucky (2021-2024), led by series creator Don Mancini. However, MGM owns the rights to the original 1988 film, and proceeded with the remake without Mancini's involvement, causing the long-time series writer-director to be concerned the film would negatively impact the TV show if it flopped. How does Child's Play fare?

It's decent, but a mixed bag. Going with an AI Chucky doll (which isn't a spoiler, by the way - it's established before even meeting our characters) is a change that I think works on some levels. Chucky's origin story has never been a strong point of the Child's Play franchise, so redoing it for this modern remake is a concept with potential. With the understanding that this Chucky is not Charles Lee Ray, I thought Mark Hamill did a good job replacing Brad Dourif. I also think the movie is shot well and looks more expensive than its budget would suggest.

The execution is off, though. Chucky feels like a mixture of the T-800 in Terminator 2 (1991) and Lennie from Of Mice and Men (1992). The doll takes everything Andy says literally and is incapable of nuance. Parts of the film try to make Chucky into a sympathetic character that's only acting out of love for Andy, but as things wear on the writing gets lazier and the doll becomes more stereotypically evil. Speaking of which...

Child's Play '19 doesn't know what it wants to be. As Osprey pointed out, much of the film feels like a Stranger Things (2016-2025) rip-off, or a clone of the recent It films (the producers behind It (2017) and It Chapter II (2019) made this movie). The first 30 minutes or so feel like a coming-of-age story, with things shifting abruptly into horror during act two. Except, it's never remotely scary. For the most part, no one you ever care about is in any significant danger, and the film introduces a number of characters who were fitted for their toe tags before filming began. Gee, I wonder who's going to die: Andy, Andy's teenage friends, or the creepy perverted janitor who's installed hidden cameras to spy on the tenants naked?

The change to horror is abrupt enough, but something feels even more off when most of it is horror comedy. The opening act tries to establish real themes, but seemingly in the blink of an eye, Chucky is killing in humourous fashion while barking one-liners. I couldn't get into it, but even if you can move past that, the writing still holds the movie down. For Andy's part, he makes multiple unbelievably stupid decisions throughout the course of the film, and they're so significant that had he done the logical thing, the movie would be over. Additionally, at some point Child's Play '19 tries to mirror the whole "Andy is crazy" angle of the first movie, but it doesn't work at all. The doll is so advanced that there's no reason to doubt what Andy is saying. There's even a scene where his friends privately question "maybe Andy is lying about the doll?" despite previously witnessing evidence to the contrary. Then, literally two minutes later, before confronting Andy or unearthing any new evidence, they change their tune and are like "no, Andy must be telling the truth!" What the heck is the point of scenes like these?

Overall, Child's Play 2019 has interesting ideas but a mixed execution. I think it's a decent movie, but no where near strong enough to spawn sequels of its own. As mentioned, the original Child's Play continuity has carried on in the wake of this film in the form of a three season TV series called Chucky. Child's Play 2019 earned $44.9M against its $10M budget.

---

That wraps up the Child's Play series. Comfortably the best series I've watched in a while, and I'm intruiged about the TV show. It's very clear that Don Mancini is beloved by his cast because the number of performers that return for later sequels is pretty remarkable. Here's how I'd rate the movies:

1. Child's Play (1988) - A rock-solid cult classic
2. Curse of Chucky (2013) - The spiritual successor to the original
3. Bride of Chucky (1998) - The Metallica Black album, makes dramatic changes that work
4. Child's Play 2 (1990) - A decent sequel that feels like a watered down version of the original
5. Child's Play 3 (1991) - Awful beginning, meh middle, good ending
6. Child's Play (2019) - Meh remake that potential to be better than it was
7. Cult of Chucky (2017) - Good beginning, meh middle, awful ending
8. Seed of Chucky (2004) - The Metallica St. Anger album, except even St. Anger isn't this bad

 

[Osprey]

Is it me or does that even look a little like Mark Hamill? I'm not sure what's creepier, Chucky 2.0 or Hamill, himself, in the Star Wars Holiday Special.

Your appraisal of the movies ended up being pretty similar to mine, with all of your scores being equal or just a point off from mine.

I've yet to watch the TV series, but your reviews have been reminding me of it and this is the month for it, so maybe I'll start that up soon.

 

[shadow1]

Is it me or does that even look a little like Mark Hamill? I'm not sure what's creepier, Chucky 2.0 or Hamill, himself, in the Star Wars Holiday Special.

View attachment 912379View attachment 912381

Your appraisal of the movies ended up being pretty similar to mine, with all of your scores being equal or just a point off from mine.

As much as I'm fond of the franchise, I haven't watched the TV series yet. Your reviews have been reminding me of that fact, though, and I'm toying with maybe starting that up this month.

I had to do it:

A friend of mine raves about the TV series, as if it's the definitive Chucky product (they're a fan of Seed of Chucky though...). I want to give it a shot, but I'm once again torturing myself with the Letterboxd Hoopter watchlist, so I've got my hands full.

One other note on the movie franchise: My biggest bone to pick with the series is that Catherine Hicks and Chris Sarandon never returned. I didn't like how Hicks was written out of the movies via a throwaway line in Child's Play 2, and I can't even remember if there was any reference to Sarandon's character.

Hicks is married to Kevin Yagher, who was the Chucky puppeteer on the first four Child's Play movies...and also made the Weird Al "Fat" suit! I've found a couple of references stating Hicks visited the sets of those films and had a scene cut out of Child's Play 2. She also nearly filmed a cameo for Cult of Chucky. It seems like she was always around, but random circumstances prevented her from returning.

With Chris Sarandon, I don't know. Possibly loyalty to Tom Holland. He has a cooking podcast called Cooking By Heart and had Hicks as a guest earlier this year. But sadly the two didn't team up during the Chucky TV show (apparently).

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

A few more recents:

Village of the Damned. This is the only theatrically released John Carpenter movie I'd never seen. And ... I didn't miss much. Oddly lifeless. Not particularly well acted. Starts pretty strong but once the creepy killer kids show up, it gets pretty dull. That's a problem when the creepy killer kids are the point. I certainly don't NEED social commentary in a movie but this nudges at issues of parenthood and abortion that could've made for an interesting movie but it ultimately has no will to really pursue those ideas. Pulpy is fine. But this just ain't that interesting.

Final Exam. Fun early 80s slasher. I like this period because you still get some weird beats and rhythms before Friday the 13th fully codified how slashers operate. There's some small nuances to this that are interesting to me. By no means great, but definitely fun if you like this stuff. A couple of bonkers performances, my favorite of which being a wild man named Wildman who is so wild, man, that he has his name ("Wildman") on the back AND FRONT of his football jersey.

 

[Fripp]

Just finished the new Salem's Lot remake.

I'm trying not to come at this as a fan of Stephen King but Salems Lot is one of my top 3 books of all time so it's really hard.

I think overall, the movie is enjoyable if you've never read the book. But if you have, it's hard not to overlook the lack of layering in world building the book has so well. The sense of impending doom you feel reading the book only comes in brief spurts in the movie. The acting is a little wooden and sometimes goofy - they didn't really sell me that they were into their characters. I liked the depiction of the Mark Petrie character but everyone else felt shallow. Of course, there's the factor of condensing a near perfect book into a 2 hour movie that limits what they can do but damnit... I wish this movie was more than it was.

I think it's worth the watch in your spooky season playlist but go into it with the mindset of being entertained and not a page for page adaptation.

I watched it this weekend, too, and you're right on all points. I'm not saying I didn't have a good time watching it, but man was it shallow and underwhelming. So many bad directing decisions and so many "tell don't show" expositional moments.

 

[Satans Hockey]

Child's Play (2019) - 5/10

A 13-year-old is tormented by a malfunctioning doll.

Gabriel Bateman stars as Andy, a young loner who, along with his mother Karen (Aubrey Plaza), has just moved into a new slightly rundown apartment building. As Andy struggles to make friends, Karen gets him a futurist "Buddi" doll named Chucky (Mark Hamill) to cheer him up. This works immediately, not only giving Andy a close companion, but also helping him make friends in the building. One problem - an overworked employee turned off all of Chucky's safeguards before it left the factory, meaning the doll will do anything to be Andy's friend 'till the end...

Child's Play was directed by Lars Klevberg and written by Tyler Burton Smith. A remake of the 1988 film of the same name, this film had some production drama behind the scenes. Universal, which owns the rights to the Child's Play sequels, had already greenlit a TV series, Chucky (2021-2024), led by series creator Don Mancini. However, MGM owns the rights to the original 1988 film, and proceeded with the remake without Mancini's involvement, causing the long-time series writer-director to be concerned the film would negatively impact the TV show if it flopped. How does Child's Play fare?

It's decent, but a mixed bag. Going with an AI Chucky doll (which isn't a spoiler, by the way - it's established before even meeting our characters) is a change that I think works on some levels. Chucky's origin story has never been a strong point of the Child's Play franchise, so redoing it for this modern remake is a concept with potential. With the understanding that this Chucky is not Charles Lee Ray, I thought Mark Hamill did a good job replacing Brad Dourif. I also think the movie is shot well and looks more expensive than its budget would suggest.

The execution is off, though. Chucky feels like a mixture of the T-800 in Terminator 2 (1991) and Lennie from Of Mice and Men (1992). The doll takes everything Andy says literally and is incapable of nuance. Parts of the film try to make Chucky into a sympathetic character that's only acting out of love for Andy, but as things wear on the writing gets lazier and the doll becomes more stereotypically evil. Speaking of which...

Child's Play '19 doesn't know what it wants to be. As Osprey pointed out, much of the film feels like a Stranger Things (2016-2025) rip-off, or a clone of the recent It films (the producers behind It (2017) and It Chapter II (2019) made this movie). The first 30 minutes or so feel like a coming-of-age story, with things shifting abruptly into horror during act two. Except, it's never remotely scary. For the most part, no one you ever care about is in any significant danger, and the film introduces a number of characters who were fitted for their toe tags before filming began. Gee, I wonder who's going to die: Andy, Andy's teenage friends, or the creepy perverted janitor who's installed hidden cameras to spy on the tenants naked?

The change to horror is abrupt enough, but something feels even more off when most of it is horror comedy. The opening act tries to establish real themes, but seemingly in the blink of an eye, Chucky is killing in humourous fashion while barking one-liners. I couldn't get into it, but even if you can move past that, the writing still holds the movie down. For Andy's part, he makes multiple unbelievably stupid decisions throughout the course of the film, and they're so significant that had he done the logical thing, the movie would be over. Additionally, at some point Child's Play '19 tries to mirror the whole "Andy is crazy" angle of the first movie, but it doesn't work at all. The doll is so advanced that there's no reason to doubt what Andy is saying. There's even a scene where his friends privately question "maybe Andy is lying about the doll?" despite previously witnessing evidence to the contrary. Then, literally two minutes later, before confronting Andy or unearthing any new evidence, they change their tune and are like "no, Andy must be telling the truth!" What the heck is the point of scenes like these?

Overall, Child's Play 2019 has interesting ideas but a mixed execution. I think it's a decent movie, but no where near strong enough to spawn sequels of its own. As mentioned, the original Child's Play continuity has carried on in the wake of this film in the form of a three season TV series called Chucky. Child's Play 2019 earned $44.9M against its $10M budget.

---

That wraps up the Child's Play series. Comfortably the best series I've watched in a while, and I'm intruiged about the TV show. It's very clear that Don Mancini is beloved by his cast because the number of performers that return for later sequels is pretty remarkable. Here's how I'd rate the movies:

1. Child's Play (1988) - A rock-solid cult classic
2. Curse of Chucky (2013) - The spiritual successor to the original
3. Bride of Chucky (1998) - The Metallica Black album, makes dramatic changes that work
4. Child's Play 2 (1990) - A decent sequel that feels like a watered down version of the original
5. Child's Play 3 (1991) - Awful beginning, meh middle, good ending
6. Child's Play (2019) - Meh remake that potential to be better than it was
7. Cult of Chucky (2017) - Good beginning, meh middle, awful ending
8. Seed of Chucky (2004) - The Metallica St. Anger album, except even St. Anger isn't this bad

Is it me or does that even look a little like Mark Hamill? I'm not sure what's creepier, Chucky 2.0 or Hamill, himself, in the Star Wars Holiday Special.

View attachment 912379View attachment 912381

Your appraisal of the movies ended up being pretty similar to mine, with all of your scores being equal or just a point off from mine.

I've yet to watch the TV series, but your reviews have been reminding me of it and this is the month for it, so maybe I'll start that up soon.

I think the TV show is great too and there's a lot of call backs and characters from all the movies and some really inventive kills in the shows too. I'm disappointed it didn't get renewed but I think it's worth watching.

Also you left out the best part of the 2019 movie, Mark Hamill singing the Buddi song!...

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Re: Tales From the Darkside/Creepshow 3 ... so my curiosity got me and I did look it up. The Darkside movie is only Creepshow 3 in a spiritual sense. Never officially, though Cat from Hell was originally supposed to be part of Creepshow 2.

BUT the Tales from the Darkside TV show did result from an attempt by George Romero to create a Creepshow TV series in the wake of the first movie. There were rights issues that stopped that so the horror anthology show became the newly christened Tales from the Darkside instead.

So, in conclusion, a little from column A, a little from column B.

Also, would point out that George Romero's longtime business partner/collaborator Richard P. Rubinstein would go on to create the series "Monsters" following Tales from the Darkside with many of the people involved in monsters previously working on Tales from the Darkside

So, in a way Monsters despite cheaper budget and more horror aspect is spinoff series spiritually

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Salem's Lot (2024)

2.5/10

What a boring and disappointing film, there is really nothing redeeming here

• Most of the characters are so paper thin with essentially an introduction and death (If even that) it really is waste of some very talented actors/actresses. William Sadler as town police chief has like 3 scenes in entire movie, just waste of a great actor
• The main characters plotlines are hollow and rushed thru to point you dont care about any of them
• Both of the villains are wasted. The character of Straker is barely in the movie as is Barlow the vampire, I know in previous adaptions Barlow as also limited but at least Straker was prominent (Especially 1979 version)
• The CGI is annoyingly bad at times like its only part finished or they just didn't give a shit. For Christ's sake would it hurt to just use f***ing practical effects?
• The atmosphere for film is on par with a made for TV film. Really the night scenes are poorly done with what amounts to cheap fog effect that doesn't have any tension, etc
• The vampires are crappy weak and easy to kill while ending is underwhelming
• The f***ing glowing crosses nonsense was terrible. Just dumb and stupid!
• Salem's Lot doesn't work as a truncated film, both the 1979 and 2004 versions were TV miniseries which is a far better format for story

I see why this film sat on shelf for years before being dumped onto Max

Completely forgettable adaption that will fade into obscurity much as the 2004 miniseries has (Though I preferred that over this by wide margin)

 

[shadow1]

Torment (1986) - 6/10

A woman and her soon-to-be mother-in-law are stalked by a serial killer.

Taylor Gilbert stars as Jennifer, who's engaged to police detective Michael (Warren Lincoln). There's a string of killings across San Francisco committed by Bob (William Witt), a deranged middle-aged man. As a result of trying to crack the case, Michael is forced to miss a planned weekend getaway with Jennifer and his wheelchair-bound mother, Mrs. Courtland (Eve Brenner), at his mother's secluded mansion. Mrs. Courtland is a critical and paranoid woman, so when she tells Jennifer that she saw a man inside of the house, Jennifer doesn't believe her...

Torment was co-written and co-directed by Samson Aslanian and John Hopkins. The low-budget film was shot at Aslanian's parents' house, with his father cooking and catering for the cast and crew during shooting. How does it fare?

It's good! Torment is the hagsploitation version of Halloween (1978), assuming Michael Myers was replaced by a portly man with a revolver. The film shows the killer right away, introducing him as he rants on the phone to his therapist; a whodunit Tormet is not. But thanks to clever writing, the movie has a number of twists and turns along the way, with one sleight of hand in particular being very memorable. Also memorable is the performance of Eve Brenner (who just turned 99!) as an absolute battle axe of a woman who has physical limitations and no one wants to believe, yet is the person most equipped to ward off the killer.

Torment has some of the same problems other slasher movies have. Once the characters come face-to-face with Bob, there are multiple instances where they could finish him off but don't. Obviously if they did the movie would be over, but things start to feel a little repetitive towards the end (i.e. fight Bob, wound Bob, Bob comes back). This is likely due to the budget; there are so few characters that the final confrontation starts a lot earlier than it would in similar movies.

Overall, Torment is somewhat of a hidden gem. It's no masterpiece, but is a competent little slasher that most people haven't seen (the film has fewer than 250 ratings on both IMdB and Letterboxd). I recommend this to anyone who likes hagspoiltation or as already seen all of the mainstream slashers. Torment had a budget of $160K.

Night Game (1989) - 4/10

A serial killer targets young women every time the Houston Astros win home games.

Roy Scheider stars as Detective Mike Seaver, a hard-nosed detective and former minor league baseball player who's engaged to Roxy (Karen Young). A string of murders have been occurring along a beach boardwalk near the Astrodome in Houston, Texas. As Roy tries to get to the bottom of the serial killings, he realizes the deaths always occur during Houston Astro home games, and only during victories. And the Astros are on a winning streak...

Night Game was directed by Peter Masterson and written by Anthony Palmer. The movie was filmed entirely in Texas, including shooting inside the Houston Astrodome and using minor league players to simulate major leaguers. How does it fare?

It stinks! If Night Game were a baseball team, it'd be the Chicago White Sox. Alright, maybe not that bad. But seriously, this movie has false advertising. That poster is pretty cool! But this is barely a horror movie. It's listed as a slasher in various places, and while that's technically true, it never feels like it. What is this movie then?

A character study of Roy Scheider's Seaver. And Scheider gives a good performance, don't get me wrong. He could probably successfully portray a baseball. But Christ, the writing is horrid. Seaver is a hardnosed detective who bends the rules, is engaged to a woman half his age, and is a former baseball player... in this movie about a baseball serial killer. It's like something you'd see in a Family Guy cutaway gag.

Does Scheider's investigation style help him solve the case? No. Does his background as a baseball player come back in any meaningful way? No. Does the fact he's engaged to a woman 30 years younger than him do anything aside from constantly reminding us how old he is? No. The movie expects you to buy so hard into Scheider and the various subplots involving his character (including a feud with his mother-in-law, who's probably younger than him) that we'll ignore how bare-bones everything else is.

For a "slasher," the few kills we get are tame and unmemorable. How about giving the killer a baseball bat? You know, because of the whole baseball thing? Nevermind. The film also fails as a police procedural, which is what it feels like 95% of the time thanks to its saxophone-heavy score and severe lack of tension. You'd think Night Game may have whodunit elements, but you'd be wrong. The police eventually figure out who the killer is, but do so in a very random way, and the information is force-fed to the audience right before the climax. And, ultimately, it doesn't matter because the killer changes his MO and attacks his final victim in a crowded restaurant (you'll never guess who...which also makes no sense because the killer has no idea who Scheider is and therefore no reason to target Roxy; it's the coincidence of all coincidences. Couldn't they have set the ending in the Astrodome?).

Overall, Night Game is a strikeout. I do not recommend it, even if you're desperately searching for something filmed in Texas that you've never seen. I could not find any earnings information for Night Game, which reportedly earned $338K in theaters.

 

[Osprey]

As Roy tries to get to the bottom of the serial killings, he realizes the deaths always occur during Houston Astro home games, and only during victories. And the Astros are on a winning streak...

Sounds like nearly every sports movie ever made. All that they have to do is stop winning and the movie would be over!

But seriously, this movie has false advertising. That poster is pretty cool! But this is barely a horror movie. It's listed as a slasher in various places, and while that's technically true, it never feels like it.

Don't ya hate it? You look forward to watching nothing but horror movies all October and then you end up wasting a precious day on a movie that ends up not even being a horror, and stinks, to boot.

 

[Nakatomi]

Kicked off the month with an anthology of anthologies.

Tales from the Darkside. I could research this to check, but I BELIEVE this was originally intended to be Creepshow 3 but somehow morphed into this (probably because of rights issues or something?). Vibe is essentially the same so that story checks out in my mind. I also think Tales from the Crypt was up and running at this time and these really feel like they could've easily been episodes from that series too. Makes sense too. Since Creepshow was directly inspired by the old EC Comics. Fun to see pre-fame Steve Buscemi and Julianne Moore though I probably like tales two (cat) and three (gargoyle) the best. The wraparound has the benefit of staring Deborah Harry who'd I'd let her chain me up in her kitchen any day, but it's so lazy they actually just call it "The Wraparound Story."

Tales from the Crypt (1972). Interesting attempt to take the dark humor of EC Comics, but infused with a little Brit-horror class. Mixed bag. I liked this early take on And All Through the House, though it's done much better in the series' first season. Peter Cushing turns in a really effective performance as a kind, poor old man whose rich neighbors are trying to run out of town. It really hit me. There's enough classic EC Comics comeuppance but it still tries to be a bit too tony for me to fully love it. And I understand it was a different time but the dead-serious bastard in this is #NotMyCryptKeeper.

Trick r' Treat. Thought this is a delightful take on a horror anthology story. You get five stories set in one town on Halloween night but instead of the normal format of "now we tell this tale" they all sorta weave in and out of each other in fun ways. Time shifts forward and back so random early moments make more sense later. I also love how there are rules at play, but it doesn't beat you over the head with it and I think Sam is a fun creation that I'd be happy to see more of.

If you can spare ~4 minutes, I think you'd enjoy this short and the caption that explain how it ties into Trick r'Treat:

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Last year I went through the original eight Friday the 13th movies and learned that I genuinely loved a few of them and generally they weren't as bad as I had remembered. This year I decided to knock out the four randos that followed – Jason Goes to Hell, Jason X, Freddy vs. Jason and the reboot.

This wasn't nearly as fun. Jason X was my favorite. It's really dumb but it was my kind of really dumb. Some good gags, but awful, awful, awful special effects. I really can't think of a major theatrical release I've seen that has had worse special effects. Hell comes next. It's the one time the series went heavy into lore nonsense and it's just not a great fit. It's sorta boring too. But it is admirably disgusting at times and ultimately was more of a meh for me than anything else.

Then I really kinda hated the other two. I did my damnedest to shut my brain off and just go with Freddy vs. Jason but I couldn't. I get why it happened but this did not work for me at all. Threw my eyeballs out rolling them at every single line of dialogue. Now director Ronnie Yu has a couple of nice shots and sequences (flaming Jason in the field, creepy eye kids) but man the content here is bad bad bad. Decides against either scary Freddy or funny Freddy in favor of insufferable Freddy. Just STFU dude. Manages to take anything enjoyable out of both franchises. I spent much of my life as more of a Elm Street fan than a Friday fan, but this has me reconsidering. Maybe that'll be next year's revisit.

The reboot. The Platinum Dunes vibe just ain't my thing. Brutal, pro-wrestler-sized killers. Dour, humorless EXTREME! productions. Basically the nu-metal of movies. I understand the desire to bring some edge back to series that eventually turned into parodies of themselves, but you can have a little levity or likable characters.

My final combined rankings.
The Mount Rushmore:
III
IV Final Chapter
II
VI Jason Lives

Ridiculous but I think they're entertaining and I have a soft spot for them:
VIII Takes Manhattan
Jason X

More boring than you remember!
The original
Jason Goes to Hell

The dregs:
V New Beginning
VII New Blood
Freddy v. Jason
The reboot

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Also wrapped the Phantasm series.

I've long loved the original. I think Don Coscarelli gets the maximum out of his low budgets in a way a lot of other directors don't. Great synth score. A real visual verve. An inventiveness that sometimes feels like they might be making it up on the fly, but it generally works pretty well on me. He sets a mood. I probably overuse the term vibe, but these movies have vibes. The first sticks pretty tightly to horror though it expands to be more sci-fi as it goes along.

II and III are both pretty fun additions. The second is the classic "we'll give you more money and access" and it works. Sets into motion the almost post-apocalypitc walkin'-the-earth set up for the rest of the series. Better acting. Better effects. The third was a real pleasant surprise for me. Now this is a movie that feels made up along the way -- a real exercise in "what could happen next?" but in the best possible way. A lot of entertaining developments that I never saw coming.

Reggie Bannister is constant but by III Coscarelli gets the original gang back together again, all older. To be clear, none of these guys can really act. They're all pretty stiff. Reggie acquits himself the best with a bit of a low-grade Bruce Campbell cockiness. But I'll be honest the acting never really irritates me. Maybe I just like the weird vibes (that word again) too much. Maybe their stiffness just works in these worlds? I fully acknowledge the problem and yet I'm forgiving.

IV Oblivion (or OblIVion, if you will) was enjoyable but this one really turned the knob down on horror and up on the sci-fi and mythology. More ... contemplative than the proceeding movies. I like a little more jump.

Then there's V Ravager (RaVager?). The movie equivalent of the horse drawing meme. On one hand I'm happy Reggie is still making money and I should appreciate that I liked the first four movies. Honestly a minor miracle there. Expecting the series to go 5-for-5 was probably an unfair expectation. No more Coscarelli. This makes you appreciate his work more though. A tedious, visually flat, bad digital effects nightmare. I get they were playing with fire, but this deserves a better end note that something that feels like a local-made low-budget flick.

 

[Nakatomi]

In case any of you buy digital media, I wanted to share this link:

CheapCharts

Save up to 80% on iTunes movie deals and other offers for all digital products like movies, music, TV shows, books, audiobooks and apps. CheapCharts is the ultimate deal platform and price tracker for iTunes and Vudu Stores and the best place to find cheap iTunes movies.

www.cheapcharts.info

If you filter by Studio and select Arrow, which is a renowned boutique publisher of horror titles, you will see a ton of films for $3.99 as part of their annual Halloween-ish sale.

In the horror genre I picked up:
Argento's Deep Red and The Cat O Nine Tales, both in 4k
The Red Queen Kills Seven Times (giallo)
George Romero's Season of the Witch, which includes some interesting looking iTunes extras
Don't Torture a Duckling (giallo)
Dark Water (2002 Japanese version of the film by the same director as the original Ring)

All in all, a pretty good haul of horror or horror adjacent films for under $25. They have other films too, like a super packed-to-the-gills version of Donnie Darko for $3.99, and another well-known J-horror called Audition.

If you are ever someone who even considers buying digital, and you like horror, it is worth perusing.

Now to find the time to watch these before Halloween...

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

In case any of you buy digital media, I wanted to share this link:

CheapCharts

Save up to 80% on iTunes movie deals and other offers for all digital products like movies, music, TV shows, books, audiobooks and apps. CheapCharts is the ultimate deal platform and price tracker for iTunes and Vudu Stores and the best place to find cheap iTunes movies.

www.cheapcharts.info

If you filter by Studio and select Arrow, which is a renowned boutique publisher of horror titles, you will see a ton of films for $3.99 as part of their annual Halloween-ish sale.

In the horror genre I picked up:
Argento's Deep Red and The Cat O Nine Tales, both in 4k
The Red Queen Kills Seven Times (giallo)
George Romero's Season of the Witch, which includes some interesting looking iTunes extras
Don't Torture a Duckling (giallo)
Dark Water (2002 Japanese version of the film by the same director as the original Ring)

All in all, a pretty good haul of horror or horror adjacent films for under $25. They have other films too, like a super packed-to-the-gills version of Donnie Darko for $3.99, and another well-known J-horror called Audition.

If you are ever someone who even considers buying digital, and you like horror, it is worth perusing.

Now to find the time to watch these before Halloween...

Oh man, having seen that 25 years ago, I wouldn't have had anything left to buy food.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Also wrapped the Phantasm series.

I've long loved the original. I think Don Coscarelli gets the maximum out of his low budgets in a way a lot of other directors don't. Great synth score. A real visual verve. An inventiveness that sometimes feels like they might be making it up on the fly, but it generally works pretty well on me. He sets a mood. I probably overuse the term vibe, but these movies have vibes. The first sticks pretty tightly to horror though it expands to be more sci-fi as it goes along.

II and III are both pretty fun additions. The second is the classic "we'll give you more money and access" and it works. Sets into motion the almost post-apocalypitc walkin'-the-earth set up for the rest of the series. Better acting. Better effects. The third was a real pleasant surprise for me. Now this is a movie that feels made up along the way -- a real exercise in "what could happen next?" but in the best possible way. A lot of entertaining developments that I never saw coming.

Reggie Bannister is constant but by III Coscarelli gets the original gang back together again, all older. To be clear, none of these guys can really act. They're all pretty stiff. Reggie acquits himself the best with a bit of a low-grade Bruce Campbell cockiness. But I'll be honest the acting never really irritates me. Maybe I just like the weird vibes (that word again) too much. Maybe their stiffness just works in these worlds? I fully acknowledge the problem and yet I'm forgiving.

IV Oblivion (or OblIVion, if you will) was enjoyable but this one really turned the knob down on horror and up on the sci-fi and mythology. More ... contemplative than the proceeding movies. I like a little more jump.

Then there's V Ravager (RaVager?). The movie equivalent of the horse drawing meme. On one hand I'm happy Reggie is still making money and I should appreciate that I liked the first four movies. Honestly a minor miracle there. Expecting the series to go 5-for-5 was probably an unfair expectation. No more Coscarelli. This makes you appreciate his work more though. A tedious, visually flat, bad digital effects nightmare. I get they were playing with fire, but this deserves a better end note that something that feels like a local-made low-budget flick.

That's one of the fun series to binge. Did it a few years ago (here + 1)*, would do it again if I thought I'd have the time this month.

As for F13... I have the Final Chapter has the best one by a good margin, and I kind of like part 7 even though it's very silly. Otherwise pretty much agree I think. Oh, Part 6 is overrated IMO (not specifically by you, in general).

*that comment on Martino was pretty dumb - Cannibal Holocaust wasn't filmed yet at the time.