Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate it | {Insert Appropriate Seasonal Greeting Here}

[shadow1]

When a Stranger Calls (1979) - 6/10

A babysitter is harassed by a series of threatening calls. Seven years later, the stalker returns.

When a Stranger Calls stars Carol Kane as Jill, a babysitter watching the children of an affluent couple. She starts receiving crank phone calls, which she initially dismisses as a practical joke. However, the calls starting increasing in frequency and maliciousness and her evening turns into a nightmare.

This opening 20 minute sequence is one of the most famous in horror history. Director Fred Walton creates paranoia and tension through a minimalist approach, showing the audience only one character (Kane) in a big dark house, along with a ringing phone. Every time the phone rings, it almost works as a jump scare thanks to Walton progressively increasing the volume of each ring. It is a dreadful sequence, but one that feels real and relatable.

While the opening is classic, the rest of the movie is below average. After a time jump, we follow John Clifford (Charles Durning), a P.I. investigating the stalker (Tony Beckley, in his final role before passing away). Clifford has a personal connection to the case, as he was previously a police officer who responded to the phone call incident.

This part of the movie drags, big time. Durning is excellent as the detective hellbent on vigilante justice, but there isn't enough story in this middle section. There's a subplot that tries to humanize the stalker, but it feels like filler...which it pretty much is: When a Stranger Calls was originally a short that was flushed out and re-filmed as a feature film to try to ride the success of John Carpenter's Halloween.

Fortunately, after the bland middle section, the movie finishes with a strong final 15 minutes that reintroduces the horror and dread of the film's opening. In other words, the movie is a donut. It's satisfying enough, but the final product would've been better had the filmmakers extended the opening and closing sequences by 5-10 minutes each to cut down on the filler middle section of the movie.

 

[Unholy Diver]

Dio: Dreamers Never Die - 9/10

Bio Documentary of Ronnie James Dio, as a big fan I was familiar with a fair bit of the story, but there were a lot of interviews past and present, as well as old footage, very enjoyable film. Highly recommended for classic hard rock & metal fans

 

[93gilmour93]

Rob Zombie’s The Munsters 8/10

My wife and I watched this last night and really enjoyed it. Fun movie with awesome looking sets, great colours, fun costumes/make up, some old references that fans of the original tv show will get and Herman looks like a live action cartoon character. Way better than I though it would be. I’m hoping he continues with this rebirth of the Munsters and makes a sequel….

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

The Poison Rose (2019) - 4/10

So looking at the poster you'd think this will be some star studded big budget thriller with Travolta, Frasier, Janssen, Freeman, Stormare and Robert Patrick in it, but oh would you ever be wrong.

This movie is, to put it gently, bad. Really bad. So bad it crosses over into being entertaining because of how bad it is.

The script is absurd, the plot roughly amounts to Travolta being a southern country version of Jack Reacher against Brendan Fraser playing a cartoonish Batman villain in a "serious" movie, plus a sideplot about Travolta's daughter and ex wife. There's also a Walking Tall plot element of the badass cleaning up his hometown.

The script is bad, but the acting is worse. It's either stiff (Travolta's daughter), forced (Travolta and Fraser) or comically over the top to where it seems like the actor is trying to sabotage the movie (Fraser)

The production value is shockingly bad. The effects are worse than a typical Youtube video CGI, the sets look cheap and it generally looks like a student film production wise.

But, it is such a cavalcade of bad that it unintentionally turns into an entertaining level of campy bad.

 

[shadow1]

When a Stranger Calls Back (1993) - 8/10

A babysitter is bothered by a stranger asking for help. Five years later, the survivor of a similar incident investigates the events of that night.

When a Stranger Calls Back opens the same way as the original. A babysitter named Julia (Jill Schoelen) hears a knock at the door from a man seeking assistance due to car trouble. However, when she tries to call for help, she discovers the phone is dead. This scene manages to create uncomfortable tension and dread as Julia becomes more and more unnerved. We get a very good layout of the house, and returning director Fred Walton creates paranoia for the audience; you'll be questioning your memory during this sequence.

Like the first movie, we then get a time jump - this time of five years - and reunite with Jill (Carol Kane). Jill is working as a Crisis Counselor at a university, and is a serious bad ass. We previously left Jill in a very bad state, and it's good to see that in the decade-plus since the last movie that she's overcome her trauma.

Jill becomes entangled with the events of the opening scene, and calls an old friend for help: John Clifford, once again excellently played by Charles Durning. The two work to piece together what happened five years earlier, and also try to determine if the perpetrator(s) are still active. This gives the movie a stronger mystery feel than the original When a Stranger Calls, which revealed the killer early in the film. In this movie, though we don't know the identity of the wrongdoer(s), it's not necessarily a whodunit in the sense you're trying to figure out identities; it's more of a "how"dunit, if that makes sense.

When a Stranger Calls Back came out 14 years after the original and was a made-for-cable movie (on Showtime). Though the film is very derivative of its predecessor, I think it actually perfects the original idea and is superior in almost every way. The plot and pacing are much better in this movie, and doesn't suffer from the dull middle portion like the first movie. You also don't need to see the first movie to watch this one, though it obviously helps to get the backstory of Kane and Durning's characters.

There are a few small loose ends that I wish the filmmakers would've tied up. I won't call them plot holes because they could be easily explained, it's just the filmmakers didn't. While being as vague as possible, my big two questions are: why did that certain character return to their apartment? In another scene, what caused the door to be jammed?

Aside from a couple minor unsolved plot threads, When a Stranger Calls Back is the definition of a hidden gem. It has absolutely no business being as good as it is, and is probably one of the best made-for-cable movies ever. For fans who like horror but not gore, this is a perfect movie to watch. There are no gross out moments at all, but you'll definitely feel terror: this movie has one of the creepiest endings of all time.

Note: DO NOT watch the trailer for this movie. It spoils everything.

 

[Osprey]

When a Stranger Calls (1979) - 6/10

My thoughts were almost identical. The first 20 minutes are classic, the next hour is a huge waste of time and then the final 15 minutes are more like the opening. It's such a shame about that middle hour. My review from 4 years ago: Movies: - Horror Movie Discussion

Did you notice that the opening 20 minutes feature what sounds like the eventual THX logo music? It's surprisingly similar and played several times.

When a Stranger Calls Back (1993) - 8/10

I watched that at the same time, but didn't review it. That and not remembering it very well suggests that I didn't like, certainly not like you did, but I do remember it being more consistent than the original and liking the ending.

 

[shadow1]

My thoughts were almost identical. The first 20 minutes are classic, the next hour is a huge waste of time and then the final 15 minutes are more like the opening. It's such a shame about that middle hour. My review from 4 years ago: Movies: - Horror Movie Discussion

Did you notice that the opening 20 minutes feature what sounds like the eventual THX logo music? It's surprisingly similar and played several times.

I didn't like it as much as you because I don't remember much and didn't even review it, but I do remember it being more consistent than the original and liking the ending.

I did notice the THX music, I meant to mention it somewhere but forgot. I also meant to mention that Carol Kane's husband at the end of Part 1 looks like a low rent young David Letterman.

Regarding When A Stranger Calls Back... I had it at a 7 from my last viewing (IMDB has a 6.1), so I was already rating "up" on IMDB. I was going to leave it, but after some thought I upgraded it to an 8 because this movie gives me freakin' goosebumps! Seriously, When A Stranger Calls Back makes me want to clear every room in my house with a flash light and then sleep with one eye open (or hugging a teddy bear, pick your poison).

I don't know why this movie gets to me so much. There's not that much to the plot, especially compared to something like Hellraiser (another recent "8" rating of mine). I think it's a combination of the film being grounded in reality + the creepy ending in which the camera shows the killer several times but 99.9% of the audience won't notice him until the reveal.

 

[OzzyFan]

Mary and Max (2009)
3.20 out of 4stars

“In 1976, a tale of friendship between two unlikely lonely pen pals: Mary, a lonely 8year old girl living in the suburbs of Melbourne Australia, and Max, a 44year old severely obese man living in New York.”
A great stop-motion comedy drama that is a bittersweet journey about an unlikely fictional friendship. An excellent film about the humanizing and externalizing of 2 believably existing outcasts. Life has dealt both of them a rough hand, but they both manage to push through it all. Brings to light some of the plights and joys of its characters effectively, while showing the value and necessity of friendships in life. Exploring the internal and external lives and emotions of these characters, along with their oddities, is never boring. Quite interesting and realistic how one can be or become important friends with someone through merely words on pen and paper, or think even solely phone or text or email conversations. Evokes a wide range of earnestly earned emotions for its audience throughout. All the sets and visuals are well done too. At minimum, it’s an effective message that every person you meet or pass by, specifically/especially loners and outcasts here, are thoroughly complex with certain life circumstances creating them to be as they are, and all are in need of connection and kindness in their lives. Some may find it a bit too fantastical in a couple aspects, but otherwise excellent.

Lifeboat (1944)
3.05 out of 4stars

“In this tense Alfred Hitchcock thriller, American and British survivors collect on a lifeboat after the sinking of their ship from a German submarine attack. When a German officer is rescued from the water, the group allows him on board, but his presence only increases the tensions on the boat.”
A great one-location survival drama thriller that is dually entertaining with its socio-political metaphors. On one hand, it’s about a wide variety of people from different backgrounds banding together to survive on a lifeboat while dealing with their differences and the existence of a Nazi enemy on board. On another hand, it’s littered with symbolism and commentary on the war at the time (WW2), ethics, morals, class differences, and even emotions vs logic. Nearly all the characters are thoroughly developed and the lack of a music score adds to the tension.

House (1977) (subtitles)
2.85 out of 4stars

“In Japan, a schoolgirl and six of her classmates travel to her aunt’s country home, which turns out to be haunted.”
A great arthouse experimental comedy horror that is one bizarrely odd acid trip of an experience, and a stylish one at that. Absurd and dementedly over the top surreal. Not scary, but some of the stuff is a bit disturbing in it. Not funny, but it rides an energetic playful high most of the film. All the buildup feels like something out of a soap opera TV show. The special effects are purposely beyond campy, well most of the film is. I wish I could judge this based on the time of its release to put it into better perspective, because I’m sure it was more transcendent and unorthodox then, well at least more transcendent, it’s still pretty crazily unorthodox. Definitely feels like a love it or hate thing, you’ll be entertained or annoyed by it I suspect. Oddly, I felt entertained but detached and felt it’s ironically a forgettable film for me. I’m really trying to feel what the writer/director was going for with this, but I can’t label it confidently. At closest, it feels like a one-off/two-off pre-Evil Dead-esque film, but it’s not as coherent, scary, or funny. Oddly, I feel it’s metaphorical too on one of the Japanese wars and their lingering effects on direct descendants. I’m gonna bump my rating a touch because I think I’m deducting points based on something it never tried to do.

Smile (2022)
2.75 out of 4stars

“After witnessing a bizarre, traumatic incident involving a patient, Dr. Rose Cotter starts experiencing frightening occurrences that she can't explain. As an overwhelming terror begins taking over her life, Rose must confront her troubling past in order to survive and escape her horrifying new reality.”
A great supernatural psychological horror that is solidly effective and well done with an excellent committed performance by Bacon, albeit not materially or procedurally that original. The “smile” device is clever and meaningful in this film about trauma experiencers. The commentary on trauma’s effects internally and externally, all well done, including notes on triggers, delusions, obsession, fragility, and helplessness. Its heavy on a unsettling mood throughout with a few elevated terror scenes and has help from a great score. A bit overusing on jump scares, although a few are heart poundingly executed. Add another tally to the quality horror releases count in 2022 so far.

 

[sr edler]

Speaking as an extremely large McCarthy fan who saw The Counsellor once, I largely agree with this:

... Kermode's quite funny when he's at his best. Now I'm intrigued to see that film too, 5 minutes ago I didn't even know it existed.

 

[shadow1]

Intruder (1989) - 6/10

While working overnight inventory, grocery store employees are stalked after an ex-con breaks into the store.

Intruder stars Elizabeth Cox as Jennifer, a cashier that is harassed by her ex-boyfriend Craig (David Byrnes) who just got out of prison. After one of the cheesiest fights ever caught on camera, the other store employees lock Craig out of the store. However, after Craig gets back in and employees split up to look for him, the body count starts rising...

Scott Spiegel, who co-wrote Evil Dead II, makes his directorial debut. It really feels like you're watching an Evil Dead or Sam Raimi film; there are lots of unique and innovative camera angles, as well as a decent amount of dark comedy, which make this movie stand out amongst other slasher movies. Speaking of Sam Raimi, he co-stars in this movie, along with other Evil Dead II alumni Dan Hicks and Ted Raimi. There are also cameos by Bruce Cambell and director Spiegel himself.

In addition to its cinematography, another thing that makes Intruder stand out is the gore. There are a couple kills that are tough to watch, which is no surprise considering that Greg Nicotero and his KNB crew did the special effects for this film. Definitely not a movie for the squeamish.

Strangely, Intruder has a very old look to it; almost like it should've come out in 1979 rather than 1989. Apparently this was because this incredibly low budget ($130K) film used unexposed, left over film stock called short ends. It's weird to watch this movie and then realize it came out the same year as something like Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan.

I thought the movie bungled the mystery element somewhat, which was a let down. At a certain point in the film it becomes very obvious who the killer is, and the ending is a bit long winded. The final confrontation between survivor(s) and killer lasts almost 30 minutes! I wish they would've shaved 10 minutes off of that and repurposed it earlier in the film to set up another red herring or two.

Another random fact I read on the IMDB trivia page is that Intruder used stock music from a company called APM Music. Imagine my surprise when I heard music cues that I recognized from the 1986 Hong Kong film "A Better Tomorrow".

Overall, Intruder is a solid horror-dark comedy that stands out thanks to its interesting cinematography and cringe inducing gore. You don't hear this movie talked about a lot, but it's better than the majority of slasher films I've seen.

 

[sr edler]

The Counselor (2013) by Ridley Scott – 2.5/10

So I did watch this film, after having seen that Kermode review, and yeah, it was pretty bad. Or mostly pretty weird, like, for most of the film, say until

Spoiler

the last 20 or so minutes when it turned really grim and depressing

it almost came across like some type of hybrid thriller/action comedy.

Brad Pitt looked like he didn't take his role (or dialogue) seriously, and Cameron Diaz simply isn't a very good actress. Off the top of my head I can't remember anything I've seen with her where she's done a very good or memorable performance. Stunt casting at its worst. Natalie Dormer on the other hand, who is a very good actress, had a tiny or borderline pointless role at the very end of the film. Fassbender and Cruz were both quite good though.

This below was my favorite part of the film, where the main character is looking at a poster of Steve McQueen from The Sand Pebbles, because it reminded me films doesn't have to be this bad.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Hey guys. So just to let everyone know in case it hasn't been obvious, I'm barely on this site anymore, so if anyone else wants to take over making the new threads when they hit 1k+, go ahead. No sense in waiting for me.

Just a general FYI.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Hey guys. So just to let everyone know in case it hasn't been obvious, I'm barely on this site anymore, so if anyone else wants to take over making the new threads when they hit 1k+, go ahead. No sense in waiting for me.

Just a general FYI.

I did but was told it wasn't needed anymore and we could go on with this one until we reach 3 millions.

 

[Osprey]

Hey guys. So just to let everyone know in case it hasn't been obvious, I'm barely on this site anymore, so if anyone else wants to take over making the new threads when they hit 1k+, go ahead. No sense in waiting for me.

Just a general FYI.

Who do you think you are... Prince Harry? You can't just decide to step away from your responsibilities. Pranzo tried to take your job last month with his own thread, but we remained loyal and kept posting in yours. You can't turn your back on us now.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Not saying...just saying.

 

[Satans Hockey]

Emily the Criminal, Directed by John Patton Ford, Film itself 6.0, Plaza's Emily portrayal 8.0

View attachment 588033

I like the actress Aubrey Plaza. I never watched Parks and Recreation (TV) so she never hit my radar screen until I saw her recently in Best Sellers with Michael Caine. I enjoyed that film and her interpretation of Lucy, the publishing house heiress. I think she is going places. I liked the film Emily the Criminal a bit less than Best Sellers but still enjoyed Plaza's role in it. The film is a character study about a woman pushed to the edge into criminal behaviour she never believed she would partake in, as a losing player in the gig economy. It's her performance here that carries the film. The film itself is standard fare, Plaza makes it better. I would have liked to have known what happened to Youcef (Theo Rossi), her partner in crime at the end, it's left up to the viewer unfortunately

I thought Aubrey was great in it but I thought the movie was just ok, my biggest issue with the movie was...

Spoiler

her ignoring 2 of the most important rules that Youcef told her, not selling at your own home and not pulling the scam 2x in the same week at the same store made, especially the selling at your own home part which is just common sense for even people who use something like Facebook marketplace. She didn't come across as stupid during the movie so it made these errors feel even more out of character to me

 

[shadow1]

The Uncanny (1977) - 4/10

In this anthology film, a writer tries to convince his publisher that cats are secretly ruling the world.

Peter Cushing stars in the wraparound story (Montreal 1977) as an eccentric writer urgently trying to get his book published so the world knows the horrible truth about cats. He references three stories in which cats commit horrible crimes against humanity:

- London 1912: An elderly woman changes her will to leave all of her possession to her cats, and her spoiled nephew tries to intervene.
- Quebec 1975: A young girl interested in witchcraft goes to live with relatives after a family tragedy, and she brings her cat along.
- Hollywood 1936: An actor's wife dies on set and he replaces her with her younger stand in, but his wife's cat has other ideas.

It feels like I've seen a hundred of these 1970's anthology movies and The Uncanny was one of the weaker efforts. The first two stories (London & Quebec) were flat out boring. The third story (Hollywood) was decent, but might've been the "weak" story in a stronger anthology movie.

I think the film's problem is it's neither scary nor funny enough. It's not scary at all, even though a lot of the movie plays it straight. Some humor does shine through in the third story, but it's low hanging fruit type of comedy. Considering how often the characters look frightened and the camera pans to an innocent looking cat, maybe this movie would be funnier in a group setting with the aid of some stimulants, but that's not my bag.

It's always good to see Peter Cushing in a horror film, but he doesn't get a lot of screen time considering he's in the wraparound story. Donald Pleasance stars in the Hollywood 1936 story and does a fine job. It's funny to think that only a year later, Peter Cushing turned down the role of Dr. Sam Loomis in John Carpenter's Halloween, while Donald Pleasance had to be convinced by his daughter to accept the role. Yet neither had any problem starring in this.

 

[kihei]

Blonde (2022) Directed by Andrew Dominik 6C

Blonde is a problematic movie, as depressing an account of Marilyn Monroe's life as can be imagined. The constant focus is on her many miseries, some well documented, others more likely fanciful creations of the original source material. At times, it is a very hard movie to sit through, although there are several sequences that are if not spell-binding than something very close to it. Director Andrew Dominik (The Assassination of Jesse James blah, blah, blah; two excellent Nick Cave documentaries) has a sense of visual style totally unlike most American directors of his generation; his work can be artsy for its own sake much in the Terrence Malick manner. As a result Blonde is gorgeously shot by cinematographer Chayse Irvin with the frequent black-and-white sequences being the most striking. There are moments of portraiture worthy of Yousuf Karsh, high praise indeed. As well, Ana de Armas gives herself entirely to the role, one of the finest biopick performances that I have seen in years. But to partake of these attributes, you have to sit through a movie of reawakened Freudianism and relentless despair. Enticing though the package might be, Blonde may be just too much to ask for most viewers.

Netflix

 

[OzzyFan]

So I started October by binging the Halloween franchise over 2days, movies 1-10 (based on release date, Halloween (1978) being 1 and Rob Zombie’s Halloween 2 (2009) being 10. None of the Green Trilogy, although the 2 released are still fresh in my mind and both were more enjoyable than the majority of all the prior sequels I would suggest. The 18’ film is better than the 21’ film for the record), watching some I’ve never seen in the middle section and rewatching some. Overall it was worth my time, but there’s definitely filler in there.

Now on to thoughts. Halloween 78’ is still the legendary quintessential slasher and halloween film that masters and does so much so so well. Tension, dread, jump scares, direction, realism, the backstory, the murders and their style, the masked breathing, the incredibly catchy theme and score, etc. I’d argue it’s a masterpiece (although I know Pranzo does not feel the same).

Halloween 2 81’ is the best sequel of the bunch hands down. I’m quite surprised it’s not held in higher esteem, especially given the caliber of your average any genre sequel and average slasher movie. Carries off the same night directly where Halloween 78’ ends and hits the ground running. Creative enough, above average storyline, creepy and suspenseful setting, quality murders, and it builds on the Michael Myers and Laurie Strode mythos well, even with the controversial sister twister. Yes, it is obviously a bit derivative as almost all sequels are and Michael’s primeval-ness is toned down a bit, and of course it’s not the same “style stalker” the original itself was.

Halloween 3: Season of the Witch 82’, aka The Michael Myers-less Halloween, is not even a slasher film and probably shouldn’t even be included in this franchise and likely never should have been given the titling because of its film material. That aside, this is one of the off the beaten path risk taker Halloweens, and its results are overall bad, in a mostly unentertaining way. It’s too silly and absurd as it tries to create a discussion on child consumerism with some supernatural/sci-fi elements.

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers 88’ is the best Halloween film Jamie Lee Curtis was not cast in. Its storyline, spirit, and events are a one-off of the original film(s), having Michael hunt down his niece Jamie Lloyd, Laurie Strode’s daughter, instead of Laurie Strode. It has solid kills, stalking/tension/suspense, cops/townspeople hi-jinks, and our best acting and most powerful/memorable actor not named Curtis or Pleasance (or “the shape” arguably) in Danielle Harris the child. Not to mention a very shocking ending that is the most horrific and memorable in the franchise.

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers 89’ is a direct continuation of 4 and further develops its story elements/main protagonist as well. Very similar to 4, albeit a bit more pedestrian and takes liberties/risks with the story that are a bit odd, a couple even farcical but subtle, including a bad ending. Of note, in this one we find out Michael’s frequent use and secret joy of driving cars.

Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers 95’ is another risk taker, and does so in many bad ways. Continuing on its poor choice ending for 5, it tries to add to the Myers mythos with explanations of Druid cults, curses, an evil baby, an “evil boy”, a conspiracy/conspiracal group, and a man in black. Tommy Doyle as a poorly written protagonist with an oddly contrived “Kara Strode” just throws more fuel on this chaotic fire. Last but not least, an inconclusive ending is used to seal the deal.

Halloween H20: 20 Years Later 98’ is the best sequel after 2 (81’) thanks to the return of Curtis alongside a direct continuation from said movie and aftermath of it all 20years later. Dealing with “witness protection” Laurie Strode and her functional but trauma-induced/alocholic existence as it follows on the main storyline(s) once more with great success and brings the most powerful character in the franchise back fully fleshed out form. Tension, pacing, and thrills are effectively elevated also in the franchise with this film. Not to mention, an excellent ending exists here too.

Halloween: Resurrection 02’ is what I’d call the so bad it’s good guilty pleasure of the franchise for me. It starts off with another heightened showdown between Laurie Strode and Michael Myers, but don’t be fooled, this is not that type of movie. It feels like a parody and campy fan service(“a group of college kids spend a night exploring Michael's childhood home”), and is the first Halloween that tries to blatantly be funny and playful throughout the whole movie. Tonally, this is not a Halloween movie, but its results were laughable and fun for me. The dialogue is often comical and sometimes even surprisingly poignant. Why not even throw in some Kung Fu moves against “Mikey” Myers for good measure?

Rob Zombie’s Halloween 07’ I personally feel is a disservice to the spirit of and franchise of Halloween. Part unnecessary and unimaginative prequel, part dissociative representation of the original material, and altogether overlong. I’ve heard some call this “Zombie’s interpretation of the material”, but honestly it just feels like a cash grab from utilizing the Halloween nametag and Zombie doing his signature things and style that he’s known for. The vast majority of the film feels like he has a complete disconnect and no grasp on the material he’s using or the purpose behind it. The film is full of counterproductive choices and terrible dialogue and set-ups. Zombie honestly should have changed the villain’s name and identity and called it something else, then again that film would have made a lot less money and gotten a lot less notoriety, but at least then I could say it’s a ~mediocre slasher film with style.

Zombie’s Halloween 2 09’ is similar to it’s predecessor, and the white horse idea and Laurie Strode becoming a sociopath choices are again in terrible disconnected taste, but at least it doesn’t completely destroy Myers original image and appeal like the 07’ film, and the brutality and darkness is amped up a bit, making the film a bit more forgiving…I guess.

Altogether, I should make note that Pleasance as Loomis is great in all the movies he’s in. His presence and dialogue help build and enliven the Myers character arc and Halloween films. Him and Curtis are the spoken word characters lifeblood of the franchise. I’d like to say that the Green trio has been a solid success thus far, with 18’ being a breath of fresh air for a new generation as a fun effective homage with it’s own identity, and even 21’, while imperfect, is an above average sequel that’s brutal and stakes raising with some decent good intentioned risk taking.

Ranking them in order of quality and/or entertainment value:

1=Halloween (1978)

2=Halloween 2 (1981)

3=Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998)

4=Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)

5=Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)

6=Halloween: Resurrection (2002)

7=Halloween 2 (2009)

8=Halloween 1 (2007)

9=Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995)

10=Halloween 3: Season of the Witch (1982)

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Of note, in this one we find out Michael’s frequent use and secret joy of driving cars.

I disagree with most of your takes (!), but I'll just underline that Michael's driving around for half of the original Carpenter film!

 

[kihei]

Aftersun (2022) Directed by Charlotte Wells 8B

Aftersun is about trying to come to grips with a fading memory, one that is cherished but still weighs heavily on a young woman to this day. Aftersun focuses on a vacation that 11-year-old Sophie (Frankie Corio) took with her father Calum (Paul Mescal) sometime after he had separated from her mother. They visit a bargain resort in Turkey and spend their time together just hanging out, soaking up the sun, swimming in the sea, and chatting about this and that. Calum is a good father, an easy parent to like, thoughtful and very much taken by his smart, funny daughter who is just on the cusp of puberty with new feelings of her own to contend with. Though the scenes between father and daughter are almost magical, there is not really a narrative here. We just watch this pair interact with one another and their surroundings. Some home videos are interspersed, fragmented and vague, that underscore Sophie's continued need to revisit this part of her past. And we see brief glimpses of the adult Sophie, twenty years later, still in some way drawn to the memories of this vacation and haunted by them. As the movie progresses we realise that Calum, though a loving father, is a troubled soul, a fact Sophie only grasped very vaguely, if at all, at the time. Her childhood memories perhaps all that she has to go on, are thus bittersweet and incomplete, representing the gulf between the father Sophie knew and loved and the man whom she feels still compelled to try to understand . The direction, which ever so subtly gives hints of disquiet, the atmospheric cinematography and the acting are all perfect. Aftersun is one achingly human movie.

Best of 2022

1) Decision to Leave, Park, South Korea
2) No Bears, J. Panahi, Iran
3) Hit the Road, P. Panahi, Iran
4) Aftersun, Wells, UK
5) Everything Everywhere All at Once, Kwan/Scheinert, US
6) The Eternal Daughter, Hogg, UK
7) Official Competition, Cohn/Duprat, Spain
8) Mad God, Tippett, US
9) Holy Spider, Abbasi, Denmark
10) Apples, Nikou, Greece

 

[shadow1]

Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things (1972) - 6/10

A group of thespians travel to an island to commit grave robbing, but get more than they bargained for.

Alan Ormsby stars as Alan, the obnoxious director of a theater troupe, who leads his cast and crew to a small island off of Miami. There, under threat of being fired, he forces the team to help him dig up a corpse and conduct strange rituauals. Alan and crew get more than they bargained for when the dead start coming back to life.

Bob Clark, famously of Black Christmas (1974) and A Christmas Story (1983), wrote, directed, and produced this no-budget horror-comedy. According to an interview before his untimely death, Clark stated the film cost $60K to make, and he and his crew had to scrounge and borrow every piece of equipment they could to complete filming.

Though it's a horror-comedy, Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things doesn't have much laugh out loud humor. Instead, it has a quirkiness to it, with several scenes sped up Three Stooges style. There is some good horror though, as the zombies look good, and the movie has a strong atmosphere throughout.

Obviously, this movie is heavily flawed. Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things is basically a student film where everyone on set wore multiple hats, so I don't care to highlight the film's issues. That's not to say I pity the filmmakers; far from it, as the the final result is still impressive for what it is.

This isn't a movie I'd recommend for movie night with your friends though. Instead, due to its atmosphere and somewhat slow pacing, Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things is a movie best watched alone at 1am (watching it this late probably helps soften some of the films hard edges, too). I watched the movie in this fashion enjoyed it. I think the movie has a very small place in horror history due to being one of the first zombie movies after 1968's Night of the Living Dead.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Hey! I know that guy!!

 

[OzzyFan]

I disagree with most of your takes (!), but I'll just underline that Michael's driving around for half of the original Carpenter film!

I thought someone might say that. The original driving is entirely with purpose and necessity imo and not too lengthy. H5 feels like so much joy riding/pleasure driving, especially when he's behind the wheel of the Camaro.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Hey! I know that guy!!

View attachment 590555

Can't wait to read your review!