Movies: Horror Movie Discussion

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Though I watch horror throughout the year I really go hard in October. Due to a few factors this year -- some work travel (i.e. airport and airplane related downtime), a minor surgery requiring two days of being on the couch and a general sort of insomnia -- I was able to crush my previous record of 52 movies in the month with a positively glutinous 76 movies.

I mentioned a few throughout the month in this and some other threads. Not going to list them all here, just a few highlights.

Didn't watch many new movies but I really dug Longlegs.

I Walked with a Zombie is an atmospheric classic I'm finally glad I got around to. Same for The Changeling. Alison's Birthday is another that one me over with its creepiness.

Went on a big Dracula run including Klaus Kinski in Nosferatu in Venice (meh); the Frank Langella-starring Dracula; a stately but rushed production; three Christopher Lee Hammer Draculas (Satanic Rites of ... Scars of ... Taste the Blood of .. ) all of which are enjoyable for the exact same formulaic ways. Also did the Lee-less Legend of Seven Golden Vampires which was a fun mash up with Shaw Bros. kung-fu.

But the king Dracula movie for me is Frances Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula which has the perfect mix romance, gore, scares, skill and opulent production value.

It was nice to revisit Hellraiser, but I hadn't seen Hellbound: Hellraiser II in probably 20 years and I'm half tempted to say it's better than the original ...

Alone in the Dark and Nightbeast were a lot of fun in the midnight movie sorta way. Amityville II was nuts. Night of the Creeps also never disappoints on this measure.

Black Candles and The Beast (1975) feel like they're going to put on some sort of list I don't want to be on. But what's done is done.

 

[shadow1]

I just watched this yesterday as well and agree 100%. It has several good elements and moments but just never fully gels. It kept almost veering into "Demons but in a church" but then it would pull back or change course. Just made me want "Demons but in a church."

And though I deleted your pic in the quote ... I also watched Halloween H20 yesterday.

I rewatched that one again on Wednesday. I always hope I like it better than I remembered, but never do.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I rewatched that one again on Wednesday. I always hope I like it better than I remembered, but never do.

I'd actually never seen it. I've always been kinda lukewarm on the Halloween series. I honestly though it was pretty good and I'd rate it among the better movies in the series ... but I feel like my thoughts are out of step with most Halloween fans (I like all three of the David Gordon Green movies, for instance). Great ending though! Shame they couldn't stick to it ... I'll probably wait to jump into Resurrection but I have to admit I'm kinda curious about how they come back from this one.

 

[shadow1]

I'd actually never seen it. I've always been kinda lukewarm on the Halloween series. It was pretty good and I'd rate it among the better movies in the series. But my thoughts are out of step with most Halloween fans (I like all three of the David Gordon Green movies, for instance). Great ending though! Shame they couldn't stick to it ... I'll probably wait to jump into Resurrection but I have to admit I'm kinda curious about how they come back from this one.

Your thoughts aren't really out of step. It's got its fans. I got into the series somewhere vaguely after H20 was released but before Resurrection. Back then, there seemed to be a consensus about H20 being one of the best in the franchise. That reputation has eroded over time, with a lot of people (including me) thinking of it as HallowScream/Scream clone.

I would love to hear your thoughts on Resurrection.

 

[Osprey]

Alone in the Dark and Nightbeast were a lot of fun in the midnight movie sorta way.

I watched Alone in the Dark a few weeks ago, myself, but haven't gotten around to reviewing it. I was surprised by one of the maniacs killing a guy while wearing a hockey mask. Apparently, it was filmed and premiered before Friday the 13th Part 3, though the latter actually beat it to wide release.

I'll probably wait to jump into Resurrection but I have to admit I'm kinda curious about how they come back from this one.

It ruins the ending of H20, so maybe it's a good call to put it off and enjoy the memory a little longer. That said, I also look forward to hearing your thoughts on the movie.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Though I watch horror throughout the year I really go hard in October. Due to a few factors this year -- some work travel (i.e. airport and airplane related downtime), a minor surgery requiring two days of being on the couch and a general sort of insomnia -- I was able to crush my previous record of 52 movies in the month with a positively glutinous 76 movies.

That's just insane! Even when I did some 6 films days, I'm pretty sure I never got close to that.

I mentioned a few throughout the month in this and some other threads. Not going to list them all here, just a few highlights.

That's a lot of stuff in such a short post!

But the king Dracula movie for me is Frances Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula which has the perfect mix romance, gore, scares, skill and opulent production value.

I still prefer Nosferatu. Both versions. But yeah, pretty good flick.

It was nice to revisit Hellraiser, but I hadn't seen Hellbound: Hellraiser II in probably 20 years and I'm half tempted to say it's better than the original ...

Nah, you watched too many movies, you're not well.

Amityville II was nuts.

A favorite of mine, what an amazing (and nutty) film. Last part is just too tame.

Black Candles and The Beast (1975) feel like they're going to put on some sort of list I don't want to be on. But what's done is done.

As a big Borowczyk fan (well up to 79, after that it gets rough), I'm way up there on that list - and I don't think I've seen Black Candles, so I'll find it as soon as possible!

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

That's just insane! Even when I did some 6 films days, I'm pretty sure I never got close to that.



That's a lot of stuff in such a short post!



I still prefer Nosferatu. Both versions. But yeah, pretty good flick.



Nah, you watched too many movies, you're not well.



A favorite of mine, what an amazing (and nutty) film. Last part is just too tame.



As a big Borowczyk fan (well up to 79, after that it gets rough), I'm way up there on that list - and I don't think I've seen Black Candles, so I'll find it as soon as possible!

To quote the great Homer Simpson when addressing his weight gain, "I discovered a meal between breakfast and brunch."

Oh I definitely love the Nosferatus (except "in Venice" where Kinski is allowed to do his silly rat face too often). I just didn't rewatch either this month.

I did want note that while I grouped Black Candles and The Beaat and there is a notable common connection... Borowczyk is a filmmaker with ideas, as you well know. But Black Candles is pretty much straight disreputable soft-core sleaze.

I would love to hear your thoughts on Resurrection.

.It ruins the ending of H20, so maybe it's a good call to put it off and enjoy the memory a little longer. That said, I also look forward to hearing your thoughts on the movimovie.

I decided screw it, I'll just watch it but of course since it's now November it's no longer on any of my streaming aervices.

 

[BostonBob]

I've seen #1-2-6 and 9 so far.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Watched 2 and was twice disappointed

PIECES (Piquer Simon, 1982) - Basically a spanish giallo, with an intro that feels like an Argento pastiche, but it goes to trash after that. 30 years later, there's murders on the campus, and the worst investigators imaginable are put on the case - the film is not considered a comedy, but these clowns, the overacting idiot with the chainsaw, and the karateka guy coming from nowhere will convince you otherwise. It was a rewatch, and I had it rated pretty highly on IMDB, but the so bad it's good effect didn't get through to my older self and can't say I enjoyed it. 1/10

The Substance (Fargeat, 2024) - Really wanted to like this one as it should have engage with my notoriously refined fancies (you've got some pretty naked girls, some original, stylished and relevant horror, plus some pretty cool body horror - what's not to like?), but nah... I think it tries really hard to be clever, but it fails to find a story - it has the themes, it has the style, but it lacks in ideas, and tries to go to extremes to cover for it (you just won't care about the grandguignol ending - some of it worked on a minority of the little crowd I was with for its abject effect, but it's pretty much its only efficiency as horror, and it's very limited). I also felt it versed a little too much into hagsploitation, considering what it was trying to convey. At some point, I thought I should have stayed home and rewatch What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? instead. 4/10

 

[Nakatomi]

The Substance (Fargeat, 2024) - Really wanted to like this one as it should have engage with my notoriously refined fancies (you've got some pretty naked girls, some original, stylished and relevant horror, plus some pretty cool body horror - what's not to like?), but nah... I think it tries really hard to be clever, but it fails to find a story - it has the themes, it has the style, but it lacks in ideas, and tries to go to extremes to cover for it (you just won't care about the grandguignol ending - some of it worked on a minority of the little crowd I was with for its abject effect, but it's pretty much its only efficiency as horror, and it's very limited). I also felt it versed a little too much into hagsploitation, considering what it was trying to convey. At some point, I thought I should have stayed home and rewatch What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? instead. 4/10

The practical effects were fantastic but.....yeah, overall it was pretty disappointing to me.

I am curious, have you seen The Neon Demon (2016)? I have not, but the premise seems to be in the same ballpark and I plan to check it out soon to see if it is a better film.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

The practical effects were fantastic but.....yeah, overall it was pretty disappointing to me.

I am curious, have you seen The Neon Demon (2016)? I have not, but the premise seems to be in the same ballpark and I plan to check it out soon to see if it is a better film.

The practical effects were indeed a very nice throwback to some of the best body horror films - add a little vaseline, and it could have been made by Screaming Mad George. I liked Demi Moore a lot too, but thought the other actors were taking the "satire" a little too literally. Really hard to believe it got the best screenplay award at Cannes, couldn't help but think it must have been a terrible year.

I have seen The Neon Demon and even though I also thought it lacked in "substance" (hihi) to be entirely satisfying, I liked it better (for comparison, I have it at 6/10). It is more subtle (or more complex? or more confused? - anyway, worked better for me).

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Watched this the night you posted this review and I loved it. Trying to get the old lady into watching it, but she has a hard time tolerating the kitschy-ness of a lot of 80's horror movies lol.

Very solid movie though and a great slow-burn. Great late 80's vibe and fairly unique story. Thanks again for the post, great gem here.

@shadow1 got the wife to watch it. She hated it lmao. But it’s my birthday so she couldn’t say no lol.

 

[shadow1]

@shadow1 got the wife to watch it. She hated it lmao. But it’s my birthday so she couldn’t say no lol.

Happy Birthday!

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Happy Birthday!

Thanks buddy. Not sure what I’m gunna get her to watch tonight lol

 

[shadow1]

Alien: Romulus (2024) - 7/10

A scavenging team comes face-to-face with the perfect organism.

Cailee Spaeny stars as Rain, an orphan, who along with brother Andy (David Jonsson) lives on LV-410, a rundown mining colony without sunlight. Rain is approached by ex-boyfriend Tyler (Archie Renaux) with an opportunity: scavenge the Renaissance, a derelict spaceship orbiting LV-410. Rain, Andy, Tyler, and three other friends board the ship and quickly find out why it was abandoned: it has been ravaged by an unknown alien lifeform...

Alien: Romulus was directed by Fede Álvarez, and written by Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues. The seventh Alien film (excluding the AvP spin-offs), Romulus was intended to be a soft reboot of the franchise, not directly following the events of Alien: Covenant (2017). The movie was originally set to be released direct to streaming platform Hulu (like other 20th Century Fox property Prey (2022)), but instead was released exclusively in theaters. How does it fare?

It's good! Alien: Romulus tries to take things back to the horror roots of the franchise by telling a story that's not only similar to the original Alien (1979) but tied to it, with this film being the closest chronologically in the franchise. I would say the movie succeeds mostly in that endeavor. Just like the masterpiece video game Alien: Isolation (2024), Romulus does a great job getting the technology inside the Renaissance to match up with the 1979 film, and there's a big emphasis on making the face hugger scary again.

My favorite part of the movie is actually the first 20 minutes, which are set on LV-410. Aside from a scene in the Director's Cut of Aliens (1986), the series has generally only shown the audience these futuristic colonies post-xenomorph infestation. There is some really cool world-building here, and I hope we get to see more of it in the sequels to come. And wow, what a performance by David Jonsson as Andy. It's a well-written part and he nails it, giving an Oscar-worthy performance.

With all of that said, Alien: Romulus still doesn't hold a candle to Alien (1979) or Aliens (1986). Yes, it's a return to form for the franchise. I'd argue it relies a little too much on its predecessors at times, though. There's a famous line or two that's rehashed, which is pretty cringey. Worst of all is a callback which plays a massive part in the story and it just doesn't look right. If you've seen the movie, you know what I'm talking about.

I'd argue those are more nitpicky gripes though. My bigger complaint is Romulus still falls into the trappings a lot of horror movies do. Outside of Andy, the characters aren't nearly as strong as the group in Alien (1979) and we see the "idiot plot" shine its ugly head at times (particularly in one major forehead slapper). Additionally, Romulus starts feeling very Alien: Covenant-y as the runtime drags on. Rather than a slow burn of horror, it feels like the action and stakes are progressively ramped up, yet our characters always seem to have what they need to deal with it. I wouldn't go as far as calling it dues ex machina. But there was one moment in particular where an "oh crap, they're screwed" level of problem emerged, but it was solved within five minutes (in a relatively cool scene, I'll concede).

Overall, Alien: Romulus is above average. I don't think it's great (aside from the opening chunk of the film), but I think it's good and likely has positioned the franchise in a positive direction moving forward. Alien: Romulus was a big hit, earning $351M against its $80M budget.

The Funhouse (1981) - 4/10

Four friends sneak into a carnival funhouse after hours and witness a murder.

Elizabeth Berridge stars as Amy, who along with boyfriend Buzz (Cooper Huckabee) and friends Liz (Largo Woodruff) and Richie (Miles Chapin), sneak into a carnival funhouse after hours. Their make-out sessions are interrupted when they overhear an argument that escalates into murder. The teens try to sneak out but find they're locked in, with the murderer hunting them...

The Funhouse was directed by Tobe Hooper and written by Larry Block. Block's script was purchased by Universal, which like other studios were trying to capitalize on the massive success of Friday the 13th (1980). Hooper was interested in the project due to being a fan of Nightmare Alley (1947), a noir set in a funhouse. How does The Funhouse fare?

It stinks. According to Wikipedia, the 1997 Tony Williams book "Hearths of Darkness" claims The Funhouse continues The Texas Chainsaw Massacre's (1974) themes of "the American family's repressive nature". Something similar was noted in 1981 by critic Cynthia Rose, who stated "we see how the 'monstrous' (and once more all-male) family—the source of the evil—is sustained and regenerated by exterminating (in Chain Saw, actually devouring) the threat of the outsider."

Yeah, I'm getting lazy making a review full of quotes. But I'm putting those in to offer the other side of the coin because the only themes I noticed in this movie were "boredom" and "tediousness". This is a sleazy, shlocky movie that is pretty slow-paced. At 96 minutes, I'm going to estimate our characters don't enter the funhouse until the 40-minute mark, and nothing of significance happens for another 10 minutes. The first chunk of the movie revolves around our heroes meandering around the carnival, fooling around and spying on a strip show (which this carnival in Iowa has, for some reason).

Once inside the funhouse, things are a letdown. It's a slasher movie, but neither the villain nor any of the kills are memorable. The main killer also has an accomplice, who feels a little too much like a throwback character to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I was really let down by how underutilized the setting was. The concept of a horror movie set in a funhouse seems like a slamdunk, but the events of this movie could've taken place anywhere given the relatively minor role the contraptions in the funhouse play on the events.

Overall, The Funhouse is a poor Friday the 13th cash grab. I have to concede that I'm in the minority though, as IMDb (5.9), Letterboxd (3.1/5), and our own @Osprey (6) are all considerably higher than me. So take this review with a grain of salt; perhaps I wasn't in the right mood when I watched this (...on Halloween night). The Funhouse earned $7.9M against its estimated $2M budget.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I would love to hear your thoughts on Resurrection.

It ruins the ending of H20, so maybe it's a good call to put it off and enjoy the memory a little longer. That said, I also look forward to hearing your thoughts on the movie.

Mission accomplished. Thanks for the streaming assist.

I went in with pretty low expectations as I gather that this is one of the least-liked entries in the series. It starts incredibly poorly. It ends ridiculously and nothing in between is particularly well-made. Ugly visually. Passably acted. BUT ... I have to admit I kinda dug the concept so I oddly didn't detest it as much as I was anticipating. God it's so late 90s.

Not good, but I'm more likely to one day come back to this one than I am to go back to 5 or 6, which are boring and repetitive. And the Zombie Halloween's are leaps and bounds better made, but I also really don't care for the relentless dirty bleakness of his version. So ... not my least favorite!

 

[Osprey]

Overall, The Funhouse is a poor Friday the 13th cash grab. I have to concede that I'm in the minority though, as IMDb (5.9), Letterboxd (3.1/5), and our own @Osprey (6) are all considerably higher than me. So take this review with a grain of salt; perhaps I wasn't in the right mood when I watched this (...on Halloween night).

Glad to hear that I ruined your Halloween.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Alien: Romulus (2024) - 7/10

A scavenging team comes face-to-face with the perfect organism.

Cailee Spaeny stars as Rain, an orphan, who along with brother Andy (David Jonsson) lives on LV-410, a rundown mining colony without sunlight. Rain is approached by ex-boyfriend Tyler (Archie Renaux) with an opportunity: scavenge the Renaissance, a derelict spaceship orbiting LV-410. Rain, Andy, Tyler, and three other friends board the ship and quickly find out why it was abandoned: it has been ravaged by an unknown alien lifeform...

Alien: Romulus was directed by Fede Álvarez, and written by Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues. The seventh Alien film (excluding the AvP spin-offs), Romulus was intended to be a soft reboot of the franchise, not directly following the events of Alien: Covenant (2017). The movie was originally set to be released direct to streaming platform Hulu (like other 20th Century Fox property Prey (2022)), but instead was released exclusively in theaters. How does it fare?

It's good! Alien: Romulus tries to take things back to the horror roots of the franchise by telling a story that's not only similar to the original Alien (1979) but tied to it, with this film being the closest chronologically in the franchise. I would say the movie succeeds mostly in that endeavor. Just like the masterpiece video game Alien: Isolation (2024), Romulus does a great job getting the technology inside the Renaissance to match up with the 1979 film, and there's a big emphasis on making the face hugger scary again.

My favorite part of the movie is actually the first 20 minutes, which are set on LV-410. Aside from a scene in the Director's Cut of Aliens (1986), the series has generally only shown the audience these futuristic colonies post-xenomorph infestation. There is some really cool world-building here, and I hope we get to see more of it in the sequels to come. And wow, what a performance by David Jonsson as Andy. It's a well-written part and he nails it, giving an Oscar-worthy performance.

With all of that said, Alien: Romulus still doesn't hold a candle to Alien (1979) or Aliens (1986). Yes, it's a return to form for the franchise. I'd argue it relies a little too much on its predecessors at times, though. There's a famous line or two that's rehashed, which is pretty cringey. Worst of all is a callback which plays a massive part in the story and it just doesn't look right. If you've seen the movie, you know what I'm talking about.

I'd argue those are more nitpicky gripes though. My bigger complaint is Romulus still falls into the trappings a lot of horror movies do. Outside of Andy, the characters aren't nearly as strong as the group in Alien (1979) and we see the "idiot plot" shine its ugly head at times (particularly in one major forehead slapper). Additionally, Romulus starts feeling very Alien: Covenant-y as the runtime drags on. Rather than a slow burn of horror, it feels like the action and stakes are progressively ramped up, yet our characters always seem to have what they need to deal with it. I wouldn't go as far as calling it dues ex machina. But there was one moment in particular where an "oh crap, they're screwed" level of problem emerged, but it was solved within five minutes (in a relatively cool scene, I'll concede).

Overall, Alien: Romulus is above average. I don't think it's great (aside from the opening chunk of the film), but I think it's good and likely has positioned the franchise in a positive direction moving forward. Alien: Romulus was a big hit, earning $351M against its $80M budget.

The Funhouse (1981) - 4/10

Four friends sneak into a carnival funhouse after hours and witness a murder.

Elizabeth Berridge stars as Amy, who along with boyfriend Buzz (Cooper Huckabee) and friends Liz (Largo Woodruff) and Richie (Miles Chapin), sneak into a carnival funhouse after hours. Their make-out sessions are interrupted when they overhear an argument that escalates into murder. The teens try to sneak out but find they're locked in, with the murderer hunting them...

The Funhouse was directed by Tobe Hooper and written by Larry Block. Block's script was purchased by Universal, which like other studios were trying to capitalize on the massive success of Friday the 13th (1980). Hooper was interested in the project due to being a fan of Nightmare Alley (1947), a noir set in a funhouse. How does The Funhouse fare?

It stinks. According to Wikipedia, the 1997 Tony Williams book "Hearths of Darkness" claims The Funhouse continues The Texas Chainsaw Massacre's (1974) themes of "the American family's repressive nature". Something similar was noted in 1981 by critic Cynthia Rose, who stated "we see how the 'monstrous' (and once more all-male) family—the source of the evil—is sustained and regenerated by exterminating (in Chain Saw, actually devouring) the threat of the outsider."

Yeah, I'm getting lazy making a review full of quotes. But I'm putting those in to offer the other side of the coin because the only themes I noticed in this movie were "boredom" and "tediousness". This is a sleazy, shlocky movie that is pretty slow-paced. At 96 minutes, I'm going to estimate our characters don't enter the funhouse until the 40-minute mark, and nothing of significance happens for another 10 minutes. The first chunk of the movie revolves around our heroes meandering around the carnival, fooling around and spying on a strip show (which this carnival in Iowa has, for some reason).

Once inside the funhouse, things are a letdown. It's a slasher movie, but neither the villain nor any of the kills are memorable. The main killer also has an accomplice, who feels a little too much like a throwback character to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I was really let down by how underutilized the setting was. The concept of a horror movie set in a funhouse seems like a slamdunk, but the events of this movie could've taken place anywhere given the relatively minor role the contraptions in the funhouse play on the events.

Overall, The Funhouse is a poor Friday the 13th cash grab. I have to concede that I'm in the minority though, as IMDb (5.9), Letterboxd (3.1/5), and our own @Osprey (6) are all considerably higher than me. So take this review with a grain of salt; perhaps I wasn't in the right mood when I watched this (...on Halloween night). The Funhouse earned $7.9M against its estimated $2M budget.

I remember liking The Funhouse (for what it is), but after PIECES last week, I'm not sure I can trust my younger self anymore. You sure didn't help.

 

[shadow1]

Mission accomplished. Thanks for the streaming assist.

I went in with pretty low expectations as I gather that this is one of the least-liked entries in the series. It starts incredibly poorly. It ends ridiculously and nothing in between is particularly well-made. Ugly visually. Passably acted. BUT ... I have to admit I kinda dug the concept so I oddly didn't detest it as much as I was anticipating. God it's so late 90s.

Not good, but I'm more likely to one day come back to this one than I am to go back to 5 or 6, which are boring and repetitive. And the Zombie Halloween's are leaps and bounds better made, but I also really don't care for the relentless dirty bleakness of his version. So ... not my least favorite!

Yeah, this is generally considered to be the bottom of the barrel. I agree the concept was fresh for the time. I can't think of Halloween Resurrection and not think of the tripod kill, where the guy just quietly says nothing and slowly accepts his doom. Meanwhile, Tyra Banks is making a latte and dancing around, doing everything possible except looking at the monitors. I think there is supposed to be audio in there because it looks like the dude's mouth moves a couple times, but they probably forgot to add it in. Anyway, I'm rambling...

 

[shadow1]

A Bucket of Blood (1959) - 6/10

An awkward busboy becomes a local sensation after passing off a dead cat as art.

Dick Miller stars as Walter Paisley, an outcast busboy who works at a hipster/beatnik cafe. After being inspired by the words of local poet Maxwell H. Brock (Julian Burton), Walter returns home and attempts to make art out of clay. Walter gets distracted trying to rescue the cat of his landlady, Mrs. Swickert (Myrtle Vail), accidentally killing the creature. Not wanting to tell her, he entombs the cat in clay and passes it off as a sculpture at the cafe. After a big positive reaction, Walter searches for new art subjects...

A Bucket of Blood was directed by Roger Corman and written by Charles B. Griffith. Corman was only given a $50K budget and five days to shoot, along with access to leftover sets from the film Diary of a High School Bride (1959). How does A Bucket of Blood fare?

It's a minor classic. The film is a breezy 65 minutes, very straightforward and to the point. I can't add anything else to the plot without turning this review into a Wikipedia article; that's how short this film is. A Bucket of Blood is more comedy than horror, satirizing beatnik culture. It gets its point across, portraying our protagonist as so depraved that he's willing to commit murder for clout at a boutique cafe. I love how Walter's character quickly turns from loser to extremely pompous the more famous he gets.

With that said, A Bucket of Blood is still an extremely cheap film. It's a Corman film, so no surprise there. But in this case, the cheapness negatively impacts the ending. Without saying too much, the very final scene calls for a special effect that would've cost practically nothing to pull off. But it seems this film was shot in order, and according to Dick Miller, production ran out of time and had to film the scene without the effect. This omission waters down an otherwise very fitting ending.

Overall, A Bucket of Blood is a cult classic. The film was later remade into a 1995 made-for-TV movie of the same name. Corman would reuse the movie's sets in one of his next films, The Little Shop of Horrors (1960). A Bucket of Blood reportedly earned $180K against its $50K budget.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

The Fog (Carpenter, 1980) – Carpenter's follow up to Halloween (he did two minor TV movies in between). As you all probably know by now, I'm not a big fan of the original Halloween, mainly because Carpenter really wasn't very good (he did do a few better films afterwards, and I still think The Thing, which came only 2 years after this one, has to be considered one of the very best horror movies). I guess what I'm trying to say here is that this movie sucks. If it looks like crap, is paced like crap, and is boring as shit, it's probably crap. The campstory intro has to be some kind of joke, the rest is just as bad. I don't know why I even bothered watching it again, my memory wasn't very good, but I knew I didn't like it even as a young horror fanatic. 2/10

Color Out of Space (Stanley, 2019) – Rewatch after seeing it on screen when it got out. I had it at 5/10 and I must say I liked it at least as much this time around. Went back to read my original comment on it, which reminded me that I still hadn't read the Lovecraft short story (so I did), which was also the base material for The Curse (so tracked it and watched it too). I'm a big fan of Stuart Gordon, but Stanley did a lot better at translating the “unnamable” element of Lovecraft's brand of horror. I was in Providence a few weeks ago and it's kind of sad how shamed the author is now. I know he was probably an asshole, and some of his writings bleed of problematic past ideologies, but I'm still not convinced that semi-canceling a literature icon is such a noble thing to do – the influence his work had went way beyond his stupid real-world views. Anyway... kind of ironic that Richard Stanley also got canned shortly after making this film (for context, he was already canned by the establishment for decades, and this was his big comeback,... and he got canned right back because of allegations that were refuted in court, well according to some sources). This was supposed to be the first part of a Lovecraft trilogy. It was said to be trashed, now other sources say the project could be back on track. Fingers crossed. 5/10

The Curse (Keith, 1987) – I hadn't seen this film in 35 years. I didn't know much of anything at the time, but I was right not liking that one much. Lucio Fulci was a second unit director and you can feel some of his touch (and wish he did more). The youth actors later said they were mistreated/abused during the shooting of the film, and it's hard not to believe it, many shots of the kid in his underwear make the whole thing super cringe. As for the film, it's a simplification of the Lovecraft tale, making it a cheapo and weak eco-horror film, a subgenre that's rarely very fun anyway (though I do have a soft spot for The Food of the Gods, a so bad it's good gem that finds some echoes here – but even that was more efficient as a cautionary tale). I guess the intentions weren't completely uninteresting, the result still is. 2/10

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

A Quiet Place: Day One

3/10

Very disappointing film

I liked the first two films but this one never really hits mark. Premise was interesting and had alot of potential but execution of story was not good nor where characters with Lupita's character dragging down film IMO (The guy she got with midway thru film wasn't that good either). Infact the very few characters and speaking in film was all pretty awful as were character decisions, etc

The stupid cat defied logic especially in an apocalypse in which creatures kill after hearing noises (No god damn cat will remain quiet like that) and the people including main characters walking around city with major destruction and not creating noise (No stepping on broken glass, etc) was also not logical. In a scenario in which cars are being thrown about, building destroyed, bombings by aircraft, etc we are to just accept people walking around city quietly

Honestly a very forgettable movie

 

[shadow1]

The Fog (Carpenter, 1980) – Carpenter's follow up to Halloween (he did two minor TV movies in between). As you all probably know by now, I'm not a big fan of the original Halloween, mainly because Carpenter really wasn't very good (he did do a few better films afterwards, and I still think The Thing, which came only 2 years after this one, has to be considered one of the very best horror movies). I guess what I'm trying to say here is that this movie sucks. If it looks like crap, is paced like crap, and is boring as shit, it's probably crap. The campstory intro has to be some kind of joke, the rest is just as bad. I don't know why I even bothered watching it again, my memory wasn't very good, but I knew I didn't like it even as a young horror fanatic. 2/10

Color Out of Space (Stanley, 2019) – Rewatch after seeing it on screen when it got out. I had it at 5/10 and I must say I liked it at least as much this time around. Went back to read my original comment on it, which reminded me that I still hadn't read the Lovecraft short story (so I did), which was also the base material for The Curse (so tracked it and watched it too). I'm a big fan of Stuart Gordon, but Stanley did a lot better at translating the “unnamable” element of Lovecraft's brand of horror. I was in Providence a few weeks ago and it's kind of sad how shamed the author is now. I know he was probably an asshole, and some of his writings bleed of problematic past ideologies, but I'm still not convinced that semi-canceling a literature icon is such a noble thing to do – the influence his work had went way beyond his stupid real-world views. Anyway... kind of ironic that Richard Stanley also got canned shortly after making this film (for context, he was already canned by the establishment for decades, and this was his big comeback,... and he got canned right back because of allegations that were refuted in court, well according to some sources). This was supposed to be the first part of a Lovecraft trilogy. It was said to be trashed, now other sources say the project could be back on track. Fingers crossed. 5/10

The Curse (Keith, 1987) – I hadn't seen this film in 35 years. I didn't know much of anything at the time, but I was right not liking that one much. Lucio Fulci was a second unit director and you can feel some of his touch (and wish he did more). The youth actors later said they were mistreated/abused during the shooting of the film, and it's hard not to believe it, many shots of the kid in his underwear make the whole thing super cringe. As for the film, it's a simplification of the Lovecraft tale, making it a cheapo and weak eco-horror film, a subgenre that's rarely very fun anyway (though I do have a soft spot for The Food of the Gods, a so bad it's good gem that finds some echoes here – but even that was more efficient as a cautionary tale). I guess the intentions weren't completely uninteresting, the result still is. 2/10

I get where you're coming from with The Fog. I like it quite a bit more than you, but the plot/writing in particular is rough. IIRC Carpenter reshot a ton of it because the movie had even less plot/scares during principal photography.

 

[Osprey]

A Quiet Place: Day One

3/10

Very disappointing film

I liked the first two films but this one never really hits mark. Premise was interesting and had alot of potential but execution of story was not good nor where characters with Lupita's character dragging down film IMO (The guy she got with midway thru film wasn't that good either). Infact the very few characters and speaking in film was all pretty awful as were character decisions, etc

The stupid cat defied logic especially in an apocalypse in which creatures kill after hearing noises (No god damn cat will remain quiet like that) and the people including main characters walking around city with major destruction and not creating noise (No stepping on broken glass, etc) was also not logical. In a scenario in which cars are being thrown about, building destroyed, bombings by aircraft, etc we are to just accept people walking around city quietly

Honestly a very forgettable movie

I watched it last night and agree. I had the same thoughts about the cat never meowing or hissing and all of the people nonchalantly and quietly walking the streets... until the script needed them to suddenly be afraid to and other characters to create noisy distractions for them. Moreover, I found the whole thing quite boring. There's no story. Nothing in one scene matters to the next. There seemed to be no point. We saw a flashback to the initial invasion in the last movie. Why show it again, but in a different location, and without answering any more questions? The creatures just appear suddenly and everywhere. We don't learn anything new about them, except that they can't swim. It felt like the filmmakers just wanted to milk the franchise for a spin-off, wrote the premise on a napkin and went straight to filming. It doesn't expand the franchise. It just seems to exist to keep it going.