Movies: Horror Movie Discussion

[PK Cronin]

Longlegs (2024) - 3/10

The most incompetent FBI agent ever tracks down the most bizarre serial killer ever. This felt very derivative of The Silence of the Lambs. I couldn't help but compare them and it did this film no favors whatsoever. Where Jodie Foster's character was likable, Maika Monroe's is boring. Where Anthony Hopkins was genuinely creepy, Nic Cage is just weird. Where 'Silence' was suspenseful and engaging, this is just tedious. It's only 100 minutes, but it felt like 3 hours. I think that even the director realized how boring it was during the editing process because he inserted little jump scares and unsettling imagery throughout seemingly just to keep the audience awake. It didn't work. I still turned it off to go to bed early twice. Nothing makes sense or is satisfying. For example, Monroe's character spends a lot of time cracking the killer's code and finding his pattern, but it's not made clear how she finally does it and it ends up making no difference, anyways. The hunt is resolved without it and the mystery is explained in a voiceover, without any indication of how that it was all figured out. It's just an unsatisfying exposition dump. Overall, the film felt like style over substance, with more attention paid to copying the look and feel of an A24 film than to the writing. It did have one thing going for it, though, and that was the marketing. It made it seem a lot more original than it was.

I haven't read your review but saw the score and am sad. I've been waiting to catch this one and had high expectations.

 

[Satans Hockey]

I haven't read your review but saw the score and am sad. I've been waiting to catch this one and had high expectations.

This movie was my biggest disappointment of the year horror wise. The marketing was so good for it and the movie fell completely flat for me. It's not even a horror movie, it's a crime mystery / thriller more than anything else.

 

[shadow1]

Black Friday (2021) - 4/10

Toy store employees come under siege from zombie Black Friday shoppers.

This ensemble cast includes Ivana Baquero, Ryan Lee, Stephen Peck, Devon Sawa, and Michael Jai White as retail workers at the struggling toy store We Love Toys. They're managed by snooty Jonathan (Bruce Campbell) and frantically prepare for the hordes of people waiting outside their doors for Black Friday sales. Unknown to the group, an alien parasite has spread, turning the store's deal shoppers into bloodthirsty zombies. The crew works to secure the store and find a way to escape...

Black Friday was directed by Casey Tebo and written by Andy Greskoviak. The movie was filmed in one month, shot inside an abandoned Babies 'R Us. How does it fare?

Not well. Black Friday is a horror comedy that's light in both genres. On the horror side of things, the creature design actually looks pretty decent, but the gore was a huge letdown. Almost every human death is off-season, showing the audience blood splatter or an organ falling to the ground rather than any carnage. The undead largely rely on shooting a web-like substance that looks like silly string, which adds insult to injury. Even as a person who doesn't love gore, the lack of it hurt the movie. The characters are so painfully generic that a disembowelment or two would've helped raise the stakes and make the audience feel something for them.

On the comedy side of things, there is obvious social commentary potential. It'll come as no surprise when I tell you this ain't Dawn of the Dead (1978). There's a low-hanging fruit joke here or there, but in general, this movie's setup is severely underutilized. And that's not just on the subtext side of things. You'd think our characters would be using the toys to defend themselves, Dead Rising (2006, Video Game) style. Not only does that not happen, but our heroes spend most of the movie hiding in the back warehouse. They may as well have set the events at a USPS store, especially considering how infrequently the group has to deal with more than one zombie at a time.

Black Friday tries to do a The Breakfast Club (1985) thing mid-way through the events, and it's probably the most interesting part of the movie. The problem is the revelations from the pow-wow just create manufactured interpersonal tension rather than promoting much character development. You learn a little more about them - particularly Bruce Campbell's character - but mostly learn what they think of each other. And rather than the goth and the prep coming together and understanding each other's perspective, we instead get characters that previously liked each other bickering. It feels forced and like missed potential.

Overall, Black Friday is a deal you'll want to miss. A concept that had the potential to be a social-commentary-laden Dead Rising homage, the film is instead a generic zombie siege movie...where the undead shoot silly string out of their mouths. Black Friday had a small theatrical run, earning $1,581 against its unknown budget.

 

[Osprey]

I haven't read your review but saw the score and am sad. I've been waiting to catch this one and had high expectations.

I wouldn't recommend against watching it, since it's all subjective and I have a tendency to dislike movies that others liked, but I would recommend lowering your expectations. Maybe you'll like it better if you aren't expecting it to be the best horror movie of the year (much less last 10 years), like the marketing made it sound.

Black Friday (2021) - 4/10

I don't understand why studios even bother making PG-13 "horror" movies. They severely limit the whole appeal of the genre just to make them accessible to 13-16 year-olds who would have no problem getting into R-rated movies and would rather see them, anyways.

Black Friday would've been better if they'd just made it R and more like Evil Dead, IMO. The whole reason that I was excited for it is that it looked and sounded kind of like a continuation of Army of Darkness, with Ash working at S-Mart for another 30 years and becoming manager, only for zombies to invade the store again. Instead, Bruce's character is an unlikable wimp, not the hero. I just read that he signed on after filming began, so his character probably wasn't even written for him. I suppose that it's similar to how the casting of Nic Cage became the marketing for Longlegs, even though his role is no bigger than Bruce Campbell's in this.

 

[Osprey]

Kaun? (1999) - 7/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I enjoyed this last night, but for a very different reason than you. It was hilarious. I expected a suspense/thriller/horror and got a comedy, instead.... except that I think that they were trying for the former rather than the latter. I couldn't take it seriously with the overacting, absurdity and every other word of dialogue being "ma'am." In fact, the title should've been Ma'am?, not Kaun?. For me, it was "so bad it's good." I won't ever watch it again, but I'll always laugh when I think about it, and for that, alone, it was worth watching.

 

[Nakatomi]

I enjoyed this last night, but for a very different reason than you. It was hilarious. I expected a suspense/thriller/horror and got a comedy, instead.... except that I think that they were trying for the former rather than the latter. I couldn't take it seriously with the overacting, absurdity and every other word of dialogue being "ma'am." In fact, the title really should've been Ma'am? instead Kuan?. For me, it was a "so bad it's good" film. I won't ever watch it again, but I'll always laugh when I think about it, and for that, alone, it was worth watching.

haha, between these two reviews, this just moved to the top of my "must watch" list!

 

[Osprey]

haha, between these two reviews, this just moved to the top of my "must watch" list!

You're in luck, then, because it's on YouTube.

 

[shadow1]

Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 (1987) - 1/10

An institutionalized serial killer recounts his life story to a therapist.

Eric Freeman stars as Ricky, who following the events of the previous film is locked in a psychiatric hospital. He's assigned a new therapist, Dr. Bloom (James L. Newman), who believes he's Ricky's last chance at a breakthrough. Ricky recounts his life story to the doctor, informing him of his time as an orphan to his adulthood as a killer...

Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 was directed by Lee Harry and written by Joseph H. Earle and Harry. The producers of Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984) tasked Harry with making a new movie using as much footage from the original as possible, giving the director what he described as a "dismal" amount of budget. How does Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 fare?

A friend of mine, who only watches physical media, gifted me the digital codes for Silent Night, Deadly Night Parts 3, 4, 5 recently. I've seen the original and remember some of it, but it's been nearly two decades since my last viewing. That film isn't on streaming, and I didn't want to cough up the $3.99 to rent it, so I started with Part 2.

Boy, was I in luck! The first (by my count) 39 minutes of Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 is a chopped-down version of the original Silent Night, Deadly Night! Yes, this movie is the theatrical embodiment of "So It's Come to This: A Simpsons Clip Show." Half of the film is an abridged version of the first film, except with voiceover from our protagonist/antagonist Ricky.

Sure, I like Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981), which has an egregious 10-minute recap of the first movie. Hell, even Howling: New Moon Rising (1995), which was conceived with the same premise of reusing old footage, still has its own (mediocre, but oddly charming) story. Silent Night, Deadly Night 2 is a different animal. Half the movie is literally just a replaying of the first film under the guise of being Ricky's memories. And it makes absolutely zero sense, considering many of those memories (i.e. scenes from the first film) are incidents in which he was not present.

Once Silent Night, Deadly Night 2 gets past its shameless reuse of old footage, the film is still complete garbage. It's poorly directed and edited, and the movie has the probably worst lead performance I've ever seen from Eric Freeman. There's no protagonist to follow aside from psychopathic Ricky, who kills people in uninteresting ways and sometimes off-screen. The cherry on top of everything: there's a scene in a movie theater where the original Silent Night, Deadly Night is playing. Not only is it another opportunity to cram in some old footage, but our lead character, who just recounted these events as his personal biography, is now watching said events at the movies. Hilarious to think about; not so hilarious to watch.

Overall, Silent Night, Deadly Night 2 is a streaming pile of dookie. The only thing this film has going for is it's so awful that I'm sure it's a bad movie marathon staple and is probably used for some horrible drinking game. Oh yeah - this movie has shit all to do with Christmas, aside from the archive footage. Silent Night, Deadly Night 2 reportedly earned $154K against its $100K budget.

 

[Osprey]

How dare you disrespect a movie that gave us this.

 

[Unholy Diver]

How dare you disrespect a movie that gave us this.

At first I thought, and maybe hoped that was Matthew Broderick

 

[Osprey]

Silent Night, Bloody Night (1972) - 5/10

When an abandoned house goes on the market in a quiet New England town, a madman starts a killing spree and a deep, dark secret is exposed. Some consider this to be the first Christmas horror movie, as it pre-dates Black Christmas by a couple of years, though it's not as Christmas-y. There's a decorated tree here and there and a Christmas song or two, but the plot has little has to do with the holiday. It's low budget, but has nice atmosphere and a dark story with a decent mystery. A few of the actresses aren't good and were seemingly hired for looks more than talent, but the rest of the acting is passable. I was genuinely surprised by the first pair of murders for how sudden and gruesome for 1972 they are, but the rest of the kills are predictable and more of the implied violence variety. I was actually kind of liking the film and would've given it a 6/10, but it loses some steam at the end, switches to an extended flashback with voiceover exposition and gets a little too complicated and nonsensical. If they'd kept it a little simpler and easier to follow, perhaps this would've become a classic. Still, it was slightly better than I expected and was worth watching, at least for the historical significance. Apparently, it was never registered with the copyright office, has been in the public domain forever and can be watched on YouTube.

---

Don't Open Till Christmas (1984) - 3/10

A masked man with no Christmas spirit kills anyone wearing a Santa suit on the streets of London. You'd think, once the pattern was established and it made all of the news, that people would stop wearing Santa suits in public to, you know, not end up dead, but no. They keep dressing up like the man in red, getting stupid drunk and stumbling into alleyways to meet the Grinch. Even a topless model has no concerns about putting a Santa robe over almost nothing else and going out onto the street ("ho ho ho"). Perhaps most unforgivable, though, is the missed opportunity to call this madman the "Santa Slayer." This is sort of a British giallo that emphasizes solving the identity of the murderer and catching him. That aspect is pretty uninteresting and underdeveloped, though, and the whole plot is barebones and disjointed. Halfway through, it largely stops following two characters that factor quite a bit in the first half and, instead, follows a new character. Apparently, this took two years to finish, so that could be why. At least the deaths are plentiful and gory, a few even slightly memorable, like one Santa who loses his south pole while using the urinal. Aside from the Santas, not much of this feels like a Christmas movie. The killer laying some tinsel garland over a bloodied victim counts as one of the few examples of Christmas decoration. Overall, it's a low budget, sleazy, joyless slasher that may suit you (pun not intended) if, like the madman, you have a deep hatred of St. Nick, but I didn't enjoy it as a slasher or as a Christmas movie, though I have seen even worse of both.

 

[shadow1]

like one Santa who loses his south pole while using the urinal

I'm dying

 

[Satans Hockey]

Just watched the US version of speak no evil with James McAvoy and Mackenzie Davis.

I was really interested in this one because I had seen the foreign 2022 version and was curious to see how different they made it. The trailer for this movie still gave away a huge plot reveal and I think it's best not to watch the trailer if you have any interest in it.

The first like 80-90 mins are very very similar but the last 30 mins is completely different. I think both movies work and there are some things I actually think they improved on in the first 80-90 of the movie. James seems to be having a blast playing this role and Davis was great too, really the whole cast was great.

I actually recommend watching both versions as I enjoyed both.

I know this is on Peacock not sure where the original is.

 

[Ace]

Just watched the US version of speak no evil with James McAvoy and Mackenzie Davis.

I was really interested in this one because I had seen the foreign 2022 version and was curious to see how different they made it. The trailer for this movie still gave away a huge plot reveal and I think it's best not to watch the trailer if you have any interest in it.

The first like 80-90 mins are very very similar but the last 30 mins is completely different. I think both movies work and there are some things I actually think they improved on in the first 80-90 of the movie. James seems to be having a blast playing this role and Davis was great too, really the whole cast was great.

I actually recommend watching both versions as I enjoyed both.

I know this is on Peacock not sure where the original is.

I said that the remake, which I agree people should watch along with the original, is one of the most interesting remakes I’ve ever seen. Despite (or because) the first 2/3rds is the same movie. The original movie was the kind of movie that can leave some scars. It is bleak and depressing and it hurts, man. When the remake was announced the first thing I said was there is no way they use that ending. After watching it..it was the complete right call. Because the total diverting it does is more interesting than remaking the ending. It creates a “choose your own adventure” type of thing for the characters. And it was made from a place where someone saw the first one and wanted to provide exactly that imo. A way to heal those scars.

We are actually recording a podcast episode about the two movies that will be out next week. I’ll try to remember to post a link to it but we haven’t even recorded that episode yet.

Here’s a Spotify link to the episode that came out today…if anyone is interested just follow it wherever you listen to podcasts. There’s a new episode every Wednesday. This week we did a watch-along for Friday the 13th Part III because there’s a Friday the 13th this week. That’s the kind of deep thinking you’ll get every week!

anyway..give it a listen if you like horror movie discussions between idiots.

 

[Satans Hockey]

Tomorrow's Friday the 13th so definitely will be watching something horror themed.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Tarman is BACK and will be here in time for next Christmas! Official Announcement: The next installment of RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD will hit theaters Christmas 2025. Taking place 18 months after the events at the UNEEDA Warehouse in Louisville, KY, a new Trioxin 2-4-5 leak puts a small Pennsylvania town on the brink of a zombie outbreak during Christmas, 1985.

This is going to be so f***ing terrible

The Director's IMDB

Steve Wolsh | Producer, Writer, Director

Known for: Fog City, Another Deadly Weekend

www.imdb.com

He has directed 3 awful films with ratings of 2.7, 3 and 3.3

It's hard to imagine something being worse than Necropolis and Rave to the Grave but here we are with this on horizon to likely show that yeah it can be worse

 

[shadow1]

Silent Night, Deadly Night 3: Better Watch Out! (1989) - 2/10

A serial killer stalks a blind woman who he has a psychic connection with.

Samantha Scully stars as Laura, a blind woman with clairvoyant abilities. She undergoes a series of dream sessions conducted by Dr. Newbury (Richard Beymer), who is trying to get her to form a connection with the comatose Ricky Caldwell (now played by Bill Moseley). Dr. Newbury's sessions work a little too well, as Ricky escapes and hunts Laura and her family on Christmas Eve...

Silent Night, Deadly Night 3 was directed by Monte Hellman and written by Carlos Laszlo. The direct-to-video film was produced at rapid speed, with the original script thrown out and re-written in the span of one week during March 1989. The production was able to film and edit everything so quickly that the movie was shown at a film festival in July of that year. How does Silent Night, Deadly Night 3 fare?

It's a steaming pile of sh...coal. Let's start off with what little good there is: Silent Night, Deadly Night 3 is better than Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 (1987). If you read my last review, you know that's not saying much. But at least this movie isn't a glorified clip show, and it's shot halfway decent. Additionally, this film randomly has Richard Beymer and Eric Da Re of Twin Peaks (1990-1991) fame, which was interesting...I guess.

There's so much bad I don't even know where to begin. Why is Laura psychic? What was the point of Laura being psychic? Why did doctors reconstruct Ricky's head? Why did Dr. Newbury want to awaken Ricky? Why does Ricky want to kill Laura? And (minor spoiler): why would anyone keep their personal shotgun loaded with blanks?

The movie makes no sense on any level. If you can ignore that, the film can be stripped down to an "A" and "B" plot. The "A" plot is Laura and her relatives being stalked by Ricky at her grandmother's house. This part of the film is slow and the characters are very dense. "It's Christmas Eve and grandma is missing, even though she's supposed to be here and left the stove on? I'll take a bath." The "B" plot is just as bad, with Dr. Newbury and a police Lieutenant on an impromptu road trip to save Laura from Ricky. The banter between these two is supposed to add some levity to the movie, but it's boring and pointless... just like everything else.

Overall, Silent Night, Deadly Night 3 makes Leprechaun 4: In Space (1996) look good. It had the potential to be a worse version of Eyes of Laura Mars (1978, and not a great movie), but it does next to nothing with its gimmick. Even if you can ignore how little sense everything makes, this film is something no film should ever be: boring. I couldn't find any budget or earnings information for this direct-to-video movie.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Silent Night, Deadly Night 3: Better Watch Out! (1989) - 2/10

Very courageous of you. The next two are a lot better - whatever debt Yuzna had or bet he loss to end up being involved with this, we'll probably never know.