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.