Movies: Horror Movie Discussion

[Praetorian Caps]

Going on a big Terrifier kick. Part one is still the best but three has turned the franchise up to 11! Second best movie out of the three.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

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.

Awesome write-up here bud. Instantly added to my list. Definitely looking forward to this one. I bet I can even talk the old lady into watching it, since she picked the last couple. Right up our alley of creepy and unsettling f***ed-up-ness.

 

[shadow1]

Razorback (1984) - 6/10

A massive razorback boar stalks the Australian outback.

Bill Kerr stars as Jake, a hunter whose family is attacked by an unnaturally big razorback. With the locals not believing his story, Jake becomes a pariah and dedicates his life to hunting down the boar. No one else believes the boar exists aside from Sarah (Arkie Whiteley), a local who tracks boar activity. Meanwhile, American wildlife reporter Beth (Judy Morris) - on the eve of her anniversary to Carl (Gregory Harrison) - heads from New York to Australia to film an expose about a pet food processing plant, but soon meets Jake and discovers his story is true...

Razorback was directed by Russell Mulcahy and written by Everett De Roche. The film is based on a 1981 Peter Brennan novel of the same name. The story is believed to be loosely based on the death of Azaria Chamberlain, the infant who was killed by a dingo. How does Razorback fare?

It's good... but often feels like it's on the cusp of being something more. Even with the frustratingly low-quality digital version I purchased from Apple, Razorback's strong visuals stand out. A lot of the "sets" in this film are the desolate outback, with the memorable cinematography including the use of flashlights cutting through the dusty and foggy landscape. Apparently, even Steven Speilberg called director Mulcahy to ask him how one particular shot was created.

Speaking of whom, is Razorback a Jaws (1975) rip-off? No. There are similarities here or there - including a dollar store version of the dolly zoom (it's not really a dolly zoom shot but feels like a weird homage). But for the most part, Razorback does its own thing. Being vague, this film has brass ones. It takes a big chance in the first 30 minutes or so, and while its not the first movie to do what I'm talking around, I thought it was effective and it got me more invested in the events.

Even with those strengths, Razorback is held back (no pun intended) by being too by the numbers. Didn't I just say this film takes a big chance? It does, but after that happens, things become a little too formulaic. Being that this film is centered around a reporter, our characters are investigating what's going on. But we always know more than they do, so there's never any drama when they unearth discoveries the audience has known about for 30+ minutes. Furthermore, the razorback boar seems to take a back seat for a lot of the film. It doesn't feel like an omnipresent threat that can strike at any time and that's terrorizing the region. On the contrary, Razorback's body count is very low, and for much of the movie only targets people that are actively targeting it.

Overall, I had an okay time with Razorback. I wouldn't go as far as calling it a hidden gem, but it's a good movie that I'd never heard of. Razorback was a box-office dud, reportedly earning only $950K against its roughly $3.6M budget.

 

[shadow1]

Awesome write-up here bud. Instantly added to my list. Definitely looking forward to this one. I bet I can even talk the old lady into watching it, since she picked the last couple. Right up our alley of creepy and unsettling f***ed-up-ness.

Thanks, I hope you both like it!

It's on Youtube. The video quality isn't the greatest, but I'm a fan of this channel:

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Thanks, I hope you both like it!

It's on Youtube. The video quality isn't the greatest, but I'm a fan of this channel:

Thanks for the tip buddy, will probably be watching it tonight.

 

[Osprey]

Overall, I had an okay time with Razorback. I wouldn't go as far as calling it a hidden gem, but it's a good movie that I'd never heard of.

I just looked up my review from two years ago and saw that you gave it a like. "Never heard of." I feel so forgotten.

 

[shadow1]

I just looked up my review from two years ago and saw that you gave it a like. "Never heard of." I feel so forgotten.

My bad! I probably have that Liam Neeson memory loss thing going on...

I actually look up previous reviews a lot (which was difficult to do with the next review I'm going to post). I didn't bother with Razorback, figuring it was so obscure it'd be the apex of horror reviews on this hockey forum. How naive of me.

 

[Osprey]

The House That Screamed (1969) - 7/10

A teenage girl arrives at a boarding school that's run by a domineering headmistress and where several girls have mysteriously disappeared. It's a Spanish film (in English, reportedly the first ever) that has many of the hallmarks of Italian giallo--murder, mystery, psychological terror and eroticism--and reportedly inspired Dario Argento's Suspiria 8 years later. It's more conventionally shot, however, and looks and feels a lot like a 1960s period drama or Hammer film with lavish sets and costumes. I liked that and the widescreen cinematography. As conventional as it looks, there's a subtext of sexual frustration that runs throughout it that reminded me that I was watching a European film. There are a few kills and it's considered an early slasher, but it felt more like a psychological thriller with atmosphere and tension for most of its length. It ends in true horror fashion, though. It's a twisted, memorable ending that's reminiscent of a later horror film that no doubt ripped it off. That and a surprising narrative turn 20 minutes earlier really elevated the film for me because I wasn't expecting either. It may be tame by modern standards, but it feels like it was ahead of its time for the 1960s.

---

Who Can Kill a Child? (1976) - 6/10

A vacationing British couple takes a boat to a secluded Spanish island and finds that the town on it is overrun by a mob of bloodthirsty... tweens. I wonder if Stephen King saw this and was inspired by it because it might as well have been called "Children of the Coral." It's another Spanish film in English by the writer/director of The House That Screamed. The Mediterranean setting is beautiful and contrasts with the eeriness of the seemingly deserted coastal village. There's good atmosphere, mounting dread and an interesting moral dilemma: could you kill a child to defend yourself? A few things did bother me a little, though. For one, the husband repeatedly leaves his pregnant wife alone even after he's discovered dead bodies and is slow to realize that they should probably leave the island. He and even she got to be little irritating as the film went along. There are also a few moments when characters are loud when they should be quiet and vice versa. Such things took me out of it a little, but weren't enough to ruin it. Overall, I found the film engaging, creepy and better than I expected from one that I'd never heard of before.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I too finally watched a few horror films... with no success - zero, nada, rien pantoute.

The Black Phone (Derrickson, 2021) – I had never seen this and for some reason thought it was considered an effective scary flick. It's not. The best thing is the scene where the father punishes his daughter, later echoed in the boogeyman waiting upstairs for her brother to misbehave. There was something there that could have been interesting (the phone worked when the abductor was a kid, he used to be a victim of his own father, etc.), but I think the phone as a connection to the other victims was just a lazy idea. 3/10

The Dark Half (Romero, 1993) – Hadn't seen it since its original theater run. I know I read the book, I don't remember, but I can just hope it was better. It's clumsy (there's one scene with a guy trying to run away from the killer and falling in the hallway that is just some of the worst acting ever put on film – not that the rest of the cast is doing really any better), it's dumb (I'm sure there was an interesting story to tell about the Richard Bachman pen name, but that was not it – it's a film about writing and writers that would have really needed a complete rewrite), and the second half is so boring... The Romero and King pairing ends up very disappointing. 2/10

Lalupa mannara (The Legend of the Wolf Woman or Werewolf Woman, Di Silvestro, 1976) – This one is harder to rate. On one hand, it's an absolutely ridiculous amateurish sexploitation. The opening sequence with the “werewolf” (really a unibrow and a hairy nose), the repeated exposition for the spectators (how many times do we need to be told that she looks exactly like her werewolf ancestor?), the pseudo-science sexual garbage, and the main character's weird libido, all scream “so bad it's good”. On the other hand, it was made one year prior to Romero's Martin which to me is a no-budget masterpiece (nothing to do with the Romero film just above), and it weirdly has some of the same ideas. It clearly was the most fun of these three films, but it's still a disaster and I can't go higher than 2/10.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

The new Salem's Lot was a disappointment. They cut out all the character and mood building from the novel and just jumped from big moment to big moment like a book report. Someone needs to do this adaption right and make a true miniseries with 5+ episodes to properly tell the story. Other shows have shown audiences will love a slow burn series that does great world building (see season 1 of Stranger Things)

 

[Satan'sIsland81]

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

Just happened to go through this thread now and I am glad to see someone else say this.
The Terrifier films are just garbage of the highest order. I like disturbing violent movies as much as anyone but putting this crap in the same torture porn category as Saw movies (just as an example) is absurd. The Saw movies are like Casper the friendly ghost compared to Terrifier. I watched half of Terrifier 1 and turned it off. I watched a few minutes here and there of 2 and turned it off. I will not check out any of 3.
Here is the difference for me. Again, just as an example, the Saw movies whether you like them or hate them have a point, there is a message, and while the plot might not always be good, many of the movies are at times very clever.
There is literally no message or purpose or point to the Terrifier movies. Zero. They exist for no other reason than to keeping upping the ante on how graphically you can murder and mutilate women and young children. I actually have to question the mindset of someone who wants to pay to see that.

 

[shadow1]

Us (2019) - 5/10

A family's vacation home is invaded by exact copies of themselves.

Lupita Nyong'o stars as Addy, who reluctantly goes on vacation with her husband Gabe (Winston Duke) and their children Jason (Evan Alex) and Zora (Shahadi Wright Joseph). They're staying near the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk, an area where Addy has a tramatic experience as a child. As Addy becomes progressively more uncomfortable, she begins noticing signs something is amiss. While uring Gabe to take them home, Addy's residence is beseiged by dopplegangers of her and her family...

Us was written and directed by Jordan Peele. After some confusion regarding the genre of his previous film, Get Out (2017), Peele set out to make a straight horror film. Peele gave the cast 11 horror movies to watch - including Jaws (1975), The Shining (1982), and It Follows (2014) - to have a shared point of reference. How does Us fare?

It's message over plot. Us is my biggest disappointment this Halloween season; I was really looking forward to this one. It's a very well-made movie that's loaded with subtext, and I'd expect no less from the director of Get Out, which is practically a modern day classic. That film expertly blended horror, plot, and subtext, going on to be one of the extremely rare times a horror film was nominated for Best Picture (not to mention winning Best Original Screenplay).

The blender was broken in Us. The plot here is really rough; at times generic, at other times nonsensical. The doppelganger concept is interesting and has been done well before. Not only does Us not add anything to it, but I'd argue it's unneeded. Us feels like Night of the Living Dead (1968) at times, and the fact that the adversaries are copies of our heroes serves the subtext more than it does the plot (aside from an obvious twist or two). Us isn't a mystery, but there's some mystique, though I'd argue a lot of it doesn't make sense once you really put some thought into it. One thing that irked me is that Addy doesn't tell Gabe about her traumatic childhood experience until moments before they're attacked, but still before they have any idea the attack is coming (talk about convenient).

I also struggled to get into the horror in this film. All of the performers do well, especially considering they have to play dual roles. At the same time, I just couldn't find the horror in the doppelgangers. I'm not sure if that's due to the inherent concept or their sometimes hammy dialogue, or due to the tame and unmemorable horror situations. There's no standout scene or set piece here, and there's a lot of misplaced humor that waters down some of the horror.

Overall, Us is easy to watch but hard to care about. It has high production value and themes worthy of analysis, but the surrounding plot doesn't hold it all together. The film seems to be divisive amongst fans, with a big split between IMDb (6.8) and Letterboxd (3.7/5), and I'm lower than both, so take this review with a grain of salt. Us was a massive hit, earning $256M against its $20M budget.

The House by the Cemetery (1981) - 5/10

A researcher and his family move into a house where a recent murder-suicide occurred.

Giovanni Frezza stars as Bob, a young boy who moves with his parents, Dr. Boyle (Paolo Malco) and Lucy (Catriona MacColl), from New York to a large New England House. Bob makes friends with local girl Mae (Silvia Collantina) while Dr. Boyle is busy continuing the research of Dr. Peterson, his ex-colleague. Dr. Peterson killed his mistress along with himself inside the house, and Dr. Boyle is trying to figure out why. Unfortunately for the family, a dark secret is hiding in the dwelling's basement...

The House by the Cemetery was directed by Lucio Fulci, and written by Fulci, Giorgio Mariuzzo, and Dardano Sacchetti. The film is the third and final entry in Fulci's "Gates of Hell" series, following City of the Living Dead (1980) and The Beyond (1981). The House by the Cemetery was released a mere four months after The Beyond. How does it fare?

...okay, I guess Us (2019) was only my second biggest disappointment this Halloween season. I'm being really generous with this score of a "5", and you might think I need my head examined giving Us and this the same rating. The House by the Cemetery is an extremely basic film, and outside of a small twist or two, is a by-the-numbers slasher.

To that end, the film is decent. The gore in particular is memorable. There isn't a ton of it, but what we do get isn't for the weak stomached. I'll admit there was a moment or two where I felt unsettled as character(s) explored the dark basement. I also think the main villain in this film had potential, though it was not properly realized in this film (I recently saw a high-quality toy/figure of The House by the Cemetery's antagonist at a local comic book store recently, which was random...and probably not a story worthy of inclusion in this review). Most importantly, the main theme of this movie is an absolute banger. It's a shame we only hear it during the opening and end credits.

As for the rest of the movie, it's a mess. What plot we get makes little sense, and the characters are a potpourri of poorly acted and horribly written. By any objective criteria, The House by the Cemetery's story is smoldering toilet paper. What does this have to do with the gates of hell or the other films in this series? Nothing as far as I can tell, aside from a similar idea or two from The Beyond (mind you, I haven't seen the previous films in 15+ years). I completely forgot this was from the Gates of Hell trilogy when I was watching it, but knowing that information would've changed nothing about my viewing experience.

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the horrible dubbing on main child character Bob, which has multiple YouTube videos dedicated to its awfulness. It doesn't help that Bob is a very stupid child, at one point witnessing a decapitation, and later returning to the scene of the crime because "mommy said you're okay!". I'm also not sure if it's good or bad, but most of this film takes place during the day. At the very least, it adds to the weird ambiance going on here.

Overall, The House by the Cemetery has a great theme and good gore, but bad-awful everything else. This barely scrapes by as a "5" for me and honestly a lot of that has to do with the theme. I couldn't find any budget or earnings information for this film.

 

[Osprey]

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the horrible dubbing on main child character Bob, which has multiple YouTube videos dedicated to its awfulness. It doesn't help that Bob is a very stupid child, at one point witnessing a decapitation, and later returning to the scene of the crime because "mommy said you're okay!". I'm also not sure if it's good or bad, but most of this film takes place during the day. At the very least, it adds to the weird ambiance going on here.

From my review: "I spent nearly the whole movie wondering who this 'Bob' was that everyone was mentioning before realizing that it was the name that Fulci gave to the 7-year-old boy."

 

[Nakatomi]

Have any of you seen Possession (1981)? I'm curious if it's any good.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Have any of you seen Possession (1981)? I'm curious if it's any good.

It's very good. Probably top 12 all time horror for me (even if you could question if it's horror or not).

 

[Osprey]

Have any of you seen Possession (1981)? I'm curious if it's any good.

I didn't care for it at all, but I'm generally not a fan of weird, artsy films. If you tend to like those, ignore me because I'm in the minority according to IMDb and RT.

 

[Nakatomi]

It's very good. Probably top 12 all time horror for me (even if you could question if it's horror or not).

Wow, that is pretty high praise. Maybe I will have to cave and do a rental on iTunes sooner than expected.

 

[shadow1]

Ghostkeeper (1981) - 3/10

Three snowmobilers take refuge in an abandoned hotel, but find they're not alone.

Riva Spier stars as Jenny, who along with boyfriend Marty (Murray Ord) and pal Chrissy (Sheri McFadden) are spending New Year's Eve snowmobiling in the Rocky Mountains. The trio get caught in a blizzard and take shelter in a nearby hotel that's seemingly abandoned and has no working lights, yet the heat is still running. Deciding to hold up there for the night, the group is less alone than they realize...

Ghostkeeper was directed by James Makichuk and written by Makichuk and Doug MacLeod. Makichuk was a former camera operator for the local news and was inspired to switch to filmmaking following the success of John Carpenter's Halloween (1978). The movie was filmed in Banff, Alberta and was distributed by Roger Corman's New World Pictures. How does it fare?

Zzzzz... oh, sorry. I forgot I was supposed to review the movie, not describe the events that unfolded in my living room as I watched it. Ghostkeeper is a pretty tough watch. The film starts out okay enough, with a premise that has some parallels to Stephen King's The Shining novel (1977), as this was pre-Kubrick film.

Despite a decent-enough horror set up, Ghostkeeper doesn't do anything with it. Specifically, this is a supernatural-slasher hybrid. The execution of both is pretty laughable, especially the supernatural portion. This film was inspired by the Wendigo urban legend, and the stand-in for this creature is pitiful.

As for the characters and their performances, the former all stink, and the latter are a mixed bag. The characters (and often their performances) are as wooden as the trees that engulf the hotel. There's a major subplot about Marty and Chrissy flirting, and Jenny getting upset. Marty outright admits he plans to sleep with her, and complains that Jenny should "deal with it" because he pays the bills. Later, Jenny apologizes to him. Not only does these scenes make you think Jenny is a doormat and Marty a pig, but they're a waste of time... just like this film, unfortunately. The ending is stupid beyond words, by the way.

Overall, I don't recommend Ghostkeeper. I nearly didn't watch it because I thought it might be more fun to wait until the winter, but was worried I'd forget about it. That would've been a preferable alternative. Ghostkeeper was made for an estimated $750K(CA), but I couldn't find any earnings information.

The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 (1984) - 4/10

A group of broken-down motorists are hunted by cannibals.

Janus Blythe returns as Ruby, who is now going by the name Rachel. Following the events of the previous movie, she and Bobby (Robert Houston) now own a motorbike team, led by Roy (Kevin Spirtas). The team has a race in the Nevada desert, but Bobby is too traumatized to go. En route to the race, the group ends up running late due to forgetting about daylight savings time. Taking a shortcut to make the start of the race, the crew's van breaks down due to a damaged gas line. While searching for fuel, they're stalked by a group of bloodthirsty cannibals...

The HIlls Have Eyes Part 2 was written and directed by Wes Craven. Filmed in 1983, this second Hills Have Eyes movie ran out of money and production was canceled. However, following the massive success of Craven's 1984 film, A Nightmare on Elm Street, the project was revived, with Craven given the directive to make a finished film out of what was already shot. The movie was released internationally in 1984, eventually hitting the United States in 1985. How does it fare?

It's not good. The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 has a reputation for being horrible. For me, it's nowhere near as bad as Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977) or Leprechaun: Origins (2014). Instead, it's just "normal" bad.

So, how do you finish a movie that's missing a third of its intended footage? Flashbacks... lots of flashbacks. To be fair, most of them come early in the movie. But you're pretty desperate when the dog, Beast, who survived the events of the first movie, has a flashback of his own. That's unintentional hilarity, as is another scene involving Beast.

The flashbacks aren't really the biggest issue with The Hills Have Eyes 2, though. The problem here is that this film is just a crappy rehash of the first movie with needless ties to it. Bobby absolutely doesn't need to be in this movie, as he doesn't even join the main events. Ruby and Beast are a part of the main events, but why? There's a scene where the biker crew is discussing the events of the first movie, which are apparently such common knowledge they know the names of the cannibals, yet have no idea who Ruby - sitting right next to them - is.

The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 is at least watchable, though (bear in mind Ghostkeeper was its wingman). There's a decent kill or two, and the build-up isn't too bad. The characters have really poor problem-solving skills though (here's a thought: how about someone rides one of the bikes to fetch more gas?), and there's so many of them we mostly only get one character trait, and thus don't care when they croak. The ending is pretty flat, too, with one death being so uneventful I didn't realize the character had perished.

Overall, The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 is a below-average movie. I don't think it's a horrible abomination though, and I don't think it's that much worse than some of the other early 1980s films Craven made. It is funny to think that this movie came out right after A Nightmare on Elm Street (keeping in mind the previously mentioned history). The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 had an estimated budget of $700K, but I couldn't find any earnings information.

 

[Osprey]

Nice. I was going to ask if that was the one with the flashback from the POV of the dog before you confirmed it. That has to be one of the most absurd things that I've seen in a movie.

Edit: I was under the impression that there was a part 3, but there wasn't, so of course that flashback was in part 2. There are four 'Hills' movies, but the 3rd was a remake of the first.

 

[shadow1]

The Last Man on Earth (1974) - 7/10

A world-ending vampire plague has spread, leaving one lone man alive.

Vincent Price stars as Dr. Robert Morgan, a scientist who is the last man on earth. A vampire virus has spread, killing everyone else or turning them into the undead. Morgan spends his days searching for survivors and killing sleeping vampires, at night hunkering down in his fortified home. Morgan finds evidence that their may be more survivors, but all is not as it seems...

The Last Man on Earth was co-directed by Ubaldo Ragona and Sidney Salkow. The film was written by William F. Leicester, Furio M. Monetti, Ubaldo B. Ragona, and Logan Swanson, and is based on the 1954 novel I Am Legend by Richard Matheson. The novel's rights were originally sold to Hammer Studios, with Peter Cushing or Christopher Lee set to star. However, British censors wouldn't allow the film to be produced, so it was sold to American producer Robert L. Lippert. Vincent Price was cast, and to save money, the film was shot in black-and-white and filmed in Italy, with an all-Italian cast (sans Price). How does it fare?

It's a classic. This was a rewatch for me, and though it's far from a masterpiece, The Last Man on Earth is an easy watch. The influence this film had on Night of the Living Dead (1968) is apparent, as it has a similar premise, along with this film's "vampires" being slow, shambling monsters (ironically, both films went into the public domain due to administrative errors).

The Last Man on Earth is largely told in flashbacks, showing the audience the events leading up to the endemic. Because Morgan is a scientist, he's on the ground floor of some of these events, studying the disease as his colleagues and loved ones succumb to it. I think Price, who's practically in every frame, gives a good performance, and one that's a little atypical of most of his roles.

It's good Price gets so much screen time because without him I think the film would take a big hit. Though I enjoy the story, even in black-and-white, the film looks a bit cheap. There certainly aren't any lavish sets like you'd find in a Hammer film from this era. I'd also argue The Last Man on Earth is light on tension. Not devoid of it; but because Price is the only character (and a huge star), you know he's not going to bite the dust during his early brushes with the undead.

Overall, The Last Man on Earth is a solid movie. For me, it's comfort food. For Richard Matheson, it's dog food, as he called the film "inept". I couldn't find any reported budget information for The Last Man on Earth, but it reportedly earned $300K.

Dead of Night (1945) - 8/10

In this anthology film, an architect attending a house party has deja vu, believing he's met everyone there before.

Mervyn Johns stars as Walter Craig, an architect who's called to consult for renovations to a country cottage. Upon arrival, he discovers a house party going on, and has the distinct feeling he's attended this exact part before. After a series of strange predictions by Craig, the rest of the guests relay their own personal stories of the unexplainable...

• "The Hearse Driver", where a race car driver (Anthony Baird) details a strange experience after a car crash
• "The Christmas Party", where a young girl (Sally Ann Howes) has a supernatural encounter
• "The Haunted Mirror", where a man (Ralph Michael) is driven insane by a mirror with a dark history
• "The Golfer's Story", where two friends (Basil Radford, Naunton Wayne) battle for a woman's affection
• "The Ventriloquist's Dummy", where a psychiatrist, Dr. van Straaten (Frederick Valk), details an unusual murder case

Dead of Night was directed by Basil Dearden, with the anthologies directed by Dearden, Alberto Cavalcanti, Charles Crichton, and Robert Hamer. The film was written by John Baines and Angus MacPhail, and is based on stories by John Baines, E.F. Benson, and H.G. Wells. The movie is one of the earliest anthologies in film. How does it fare?

It's a classic! Dead of Night was a movie I've wanted to see for a long time, and it was an absolute joy to finally see it. The wraparound story is probably the best I've seen, and is in my opinion the best part of the movie. Craig, the main character, keeps making a series of small but significant predictions, which Dr. van Straaten tries to debunk. If you've seen a lot of these anthologies, you'll know many of the wraparound stories have the same ending. Without spoiling it, Dead of Night's ending surprised me, as I haven't seen it done in any other anthology.

The anthologies are all pretty good. The standout is the final story, "The Ventriloquist's Dummy", which I've read was the first killer doll example in film (fitting I watched this film now, considering the series I watched earlier this month). In the American version of Dead of Night, two stories were cut out: "The Christmas Party" and "The Golfer's Story". I'm not sure why they cut out the former...though if I had to pick a "weakest" anthology, it'd be this one. I understand a little why they cut out the latter: it's a comedy story, and thus doesn't really fit the tone of the rest of the film. I still thought it was entertaining, though. It certainly wasn't forgettable, which is a problem most anthology movies run into with many of their segments.

Overall, Dead of Night is a stone-cold classic. It's one of the best, if not the overall best, anthology movie out there, and is required viewing if you're a fan of that particular horror subgenre. As noted, there are two versions of the movie, an American version (77 min) and a UK version (105 min); I strongly recommend the latter. I could not find any budget or earnings information for Dead of Night.

 

[Osprey]

Just Before Dawn (1981) - 5/10

Campers are terrorized by inbred, backwoods maniacs. The best feature of this cross between Deliverance and Friday the 13th is the location shooting in the Oregon woods. Frequent shots of trees, rivers, waterfalls, rock faces and rope bridges make this one of the most picturesque horror movies that you're liable to see. I also liked that the characters are realistic and not stereotypes, though they're still as poorly fleshed out as most slashers. Where the movie was a bit of a letdown was with the killers, who were a little too obese to take seriously. It looked like most of the slicing and smashing that they'd done was of pizzas and beers. It was hard to believe that they lived off of the land in rugged terrain and that they could sneak up on victims in the forest without being heard from a mile away. The kills are also tame or off camera, so it needed to be suspenseful and I didn't find it really. Finally, the ending is a bit bizarre with a creative but implausible and ridiculous kill (a girl shoves her fist down the last maniac's throat and suffocates him). I wanted to like this movie more, since the setting and cinematography are so good, but it's otherwise only an average, unremarkable slasher.

---

In a Violent Nature (2024) - 2/10

Clueless campers accidentally resurrect a killer with daddy issues. This has to be the most boring horror movie that I've ever seen. Not necessarily the worst, just the most boring. From long, still shots of nothing happening to long shots of the killer's back and head as he stomps through the forest to long, pointless conversations, 90% of the run time feels like filler to stretch it out. The most interesting thing about the whole film is the premise of a slasher from the killer's POV, but it quickly became apparent that it's not as cool as it sounds. Imagine Friday the 13th, but you always know where Jason is because the camera follows him around and, most of the time, he's doing nothing but walking through the woods. You see the people that he's going to kill long before he reaches them and they never see or hear him in time, despite making a lot of noise and no effort to conceal himself. There's no suspense, jump scares or even a soundtrack. It's a very minimalist film without any such moviemaking tricks to enhance the experience, probably to make it feel real, but there's a reason that movies, especially slashers, use those tricks. They'd be deathly boring without them. At least the kills are interesting, but you might be on your phone a lot while waiting for them.