4th Annual Mitch & Nic's October Halloween/Horror Film Bonanza!!!
List activity
114 views
• 0 this weekCreate a new list
List your movie, TV & celebrity picks.
35 titles
- DirectorJan de BontStarsLiam NeesonCatherine Zeta-JonesOwen WilsonDr Marrow enlists Theo, Luke and Nell for a study of sleep disorders at the Hill House. As soon as the terrifying truth about the mansion is revealed, everyone is found fighting for their lives.09-29-17
The Haunting moves fast, gets us to the haunted house early in the film, and doesn't dwell on character or personal circumstance very long--this is a benefit and kind of a disappointment. The film tries to add depth and realism to the characters but is more interested in sets and design. The architecture and interior design of the two houses used to stage this film is grand and opulently baroque. This movie cares about sets, especially giant gilded carved doors with ancient looking door handles only kings and queens would have.
Then the stellar cast jumps in and becomes charming but lacking in complexity. Zeta-Jones and Wilson are always watchable while Neeson and Lili Taylor are pretty one-dimensional and uninteresting. The writers seem to be middle of the road with the characters, but they exist somewhere in their proto-type drawings.
The movie doesn't get scary for 20+ minutes, and the "scary" isn't exactly that scary. Eerie, yes, the old elaborate house adds to that--the deep groaning sound of the house ("the plumbing") is richly audible throughout. The score and sweeping camerawork also elevates the thin plot. It's haunted, we kind of get that, that's why we're here. But the film doesn't go all the way in on its possible "scariness." It's kind of disappointing. The rooms and actors distract from the horror elements, which feel cheap. The end of the 90's and early 2000's felt timid in embracing the truly disturbing in Hollywood horror films--relying more on mystery and human scheming than on all-out terror bump-in-the-night jolts. The Blair Witch Project was released the same year as this and relied on far less extravagance and instead on the steady unnerving of the paranormal and what we couldn't see, and achieved much more. But The Blair Witch was unlike anything before it, made outside of Hollywood, and embracing its low-key shot-on-home-video recording style. It's unfair to relate the two: but if you weigh the fact that these two popular horror films were released the same year, and were brought to the conclusion that "horror" is why your watching either film, than The Haunting fails terribly in comparison.
The CGI really works at times, particularly when the ghost enters Elanor's room and inhabits stained-glass eyeballs above her dual doorways. It's imaginative and ominously frightening. Soon after, the visual effects depict giant foot steps crashing on the stone ceiling above her as she runs down a hallway, it's well achieved visually and audibly. Later a giant bed-headboard piece entraps Elanor and a CGI mouth comes out of the ceiling and spits digital arms out at her. It doesn't quite hold-up but is visually an ambitious and cool idea that nearly works.
Owen Wilson loses his head when the possessive-ghost and owner of the house, chops it off with a demon-mouth chimney, or bell? It doesn't matter, the film provides cool ideas, and decent CGI moments that are almost scary. However, the ending CGI'd climax is over-baked and has aged poorly. This film invested too much in looks and less in smart, true scares, or the all-out horror gags of something like the Evil Dead films. And the looks often fail in translating almost 18 years later.
Less CGI would make this film better, along with a better script and scarier scenes. The film has money, but wraps it up in a half-baked haunted mansion script that's not all that compelling, or really all that creepy or exciting. - DirectorAlan RafkinStarsDon KnottsJoan StaleyLiam RedmondA timid typesetter hasn't a ghost of a chance of becoming a reporter - until he decides to solve a murder mystery and ends up spending a fright-filled night in a haunted house.09-29-17
Not a horror movie, not a true comedy, not a drama. The Ghost and Mr. Chicken is like a cartoon with superstition.
There is a spooky house at the center of it, and Don Knott's plays a steady but edgy goof challenged to stay the night in such a house. Luther's grandma, mother, and aunt (?) tell creepy-ass legends about the house while Luther prepares to spend the night there, and it's both funny while also building up anticipation to get to the haunted house.
When Luther arrives to the cobweb filled "murder-house" the film mostly plays with his paranoia: fear of the dark and unknown. It works enough to be considered a Halloween film in the same way Scooby-Do or the Adams Family do. It uses the iconography of old-haunted house tropes and it works for its primary Don-Knott's-first-gets-spooked-in-the-haunted-house scene.
Luther becomes a local celebrity due to his staying in "the haunted house" bravado, everyone clamors to his revelations and horror stories of the house. He's treated like an explorer whose found new land, or a war-hero. But Knot's plays it cloistered and anxiety ridden--its true to his caricature but also realistic. The film is more interested in legal drama: people denying the ghost stories, Luther defending his claim the house is actually haunted--then in actual spookiness.
But it works. It's pleasant, and it also has more to say about society than most spooky-funny-movies. Lawyer goes against lawyer in a defense about supernatural-liable. The movie turns into more of a court-room comedy-drama than a supernatural film. And yet it doesn't matter, Knott's is perfect, and the dialogue gets playful; it's an old-fashioned ensemble film--more interested in speculation than actual tension or slap-stick ghost-comedy.
What the film truly gets at is supernatural skeptics vs. believers. But the plot devolves into a Clue-like conclusion.
All-in-all it's a vibrant and likable production that's difficult to categorize genre-wise. But ultimately it's not a very good spooky-Halloween themed film. Still, it's genuinely watchable and a perfect film to witness for a great Don Knott's performance. - DirectorGriffin DunneStarsSandra BullockNicole KidmanStockard ChanningTwo witch sisters, raised by their eccentric aunts in a small town, face closed-minded prejudice and a curse which threatens to prevent them ever finding lasting love.09-30-17
It's about witches, they cast spells, and the ending plays out as a weak supernatural thriller. By these elements it makes this list as Halloween/Horror. But it's more a chick-flick with comedy-drama, re pleat with 90's "chick-music," sweet, and utterly sappy.
What's obvious is that the film wastes a great female cast on a trite, fairly unimaginative film. I do love the "Lime In The Coconut" scene with midnight margaritas, the camera spins around up a staircase and then swirls around the kitchen island as the four leads dance around. It's fun and displays a sense of style from the direction, but it's a shame there isn't more style and consistent "fun." Nothing is remotely spooky or particularly fresh with ideas, either. Yet Kidman and Bullock are thoroughly watchable, regardless, and the New England coastal-town setting provides a warm-cozy feeling of familiarity.
There is a romance between Bullock and the detective investigating the two witch sisters after Kidman's ex-beau goes missing. It's as half-hearted at the romance as it is half-hearted about the magic and supernatural. When Kidman goes all possessed by the dead ex, the film switches into "gonna-be-creepy-now," but not really. It quickly reverts back to charmingly safe, female-centric comedy. No one ever really feels in danger, and the movie lacks suspense in it's finale expel-the-possessor-scene when an all female entourage from the town agrees to help the sisters and band together to trap the entity with locking brooms. There's some CGI, but it's thankfully not used too much and not noticeably that bad.
The conclusion is simple and happy, of course, and everything feels warm again by the time credits roll. But unfortunately the film feels lacking in spice and more magic. Ultimately, it's a forgettable film with tonal indecision, okay performances from a great cast, and a weak plot. There is, however, a kind of comforting, soft 90's glow and feel to it all. Too bad it doesn't make up for a more interesting story. - DirectorTobe HooperStarsJoBeth WilliamsHeather O'RourkeCraig T. NelsonA family's home is haunted by a host of demonic ghosts.09-30-17
Poltergeist uses its cast well, building on suburbia family life in a fairly realistic way. It's funny, it's grounded, they're a completely likable clan. The ideas of spirits and what ghost are is deeply explored here. It makes the film both less scary, but also thoughtful.
The haunting towards the middle is well done, as a paranormal investigator envisions tearing his face off in front of a mirror. It's clearly a dummy stuffed with red paint and jelly but its cheapness doesn't diminish its grotesqueness--it's like a scene from an Evil Dead movie, and the hands pulling the face apart off the dummy are Spielberg! Speaking of--Spielberg has his hands all over this one, even though the Texas Chainsaw Massacre director actually directed this film. The Spielberg technique is mythic cinema meets relatable real-life people. That is what makes Poltergeist so enjoyable--it's well made but also tightly scripted and balanced. It's both realistic in its characters and setting, but also ridiculously dedicated to the fantastic. Tobe Hooper could have made a much edgier film--probably with less heart and more jolts. But the Spielberg influence and clear imprint makes the film something different, approachable, and even warm.
But the kids bedroom scene at the end reminds us that this a horror film: evil doll, a skeletal specter in a hallway, real (REAL!?) corpses in a muddy pool. By the end the whole suburban ghost house is sucked up into a light-beam to an in-between life ghost realm.
This is a classic film, and an influential haunted-house, ghost movie. It's scary, but not that frightening or lastingly terrifying. Instead its an easy entry point into the horror genre, a kind of family-friendly spook-fest spiked with imaginative, occasionally creepy special-effects. It's well made, and it has heart, the fact that it also provides some chills makes it one of the more endearing horror films ever-made. - DirectorJerry ZuckerStarsPatrick SwayzeDemi MooreWhoopi GoldbergAfter a young man is murdered, his spirit stays behind to warn his lover of impending danger, with the help of a reluctant psychic.09-30-17
For starters: the pottery kiln scene that's so parodied isn't some landmark moment, but its notoriety comes from its purely sensual quality. Is she stroking the phallic clay structure as she would an erection--Patrick Swayze's erection? I caught the symbolism in the scene that I've never realized quit fully until watching it some fifteen, twenty (?), years later in the context of the full feature film.
As an acting piece, Moore and Swayze are fine, likable and sexy. But it's Whoopi who steals the show, and quite emphatically I might add. She adds comedy but depth too, it's a much fuller realized performance than either of the two romantic leads. That being said, Swayze shows range not common in most his roles, and Moore is cool, sophisticated, and able to tell so much more with her deep expressions than most.
The film isn't remotely scary--it teeters on the scary, but never commits. This is a romance with a supernatural theme. It's also a mystery, the whole plot is Swayze was murdered and trying to convince his former lover. Nothing is trying to be "spooky" but the film understands it's more a thriller-drama than a horror film, and that makes it more in-tune with what it wants to be tonally versus other films that try but fail the tricky genre balancing. Ghost does a decent job at tackling its mixed themes: romance, the supernatural, and the mystery elements.
So far the films we've watched for this annual installment seem to be lazy towards their approach to genre: The Haunting disappoints in actual scariness, and Practical Magic lacks actual magic. But Ghost understands it's a sophisticated thriller with a human touch. Sharply made, and not lacking in thematic storytelling, Ghost is smart and sexy. It's better qualities come with the actual ghost rules and revelations. The film allows time for ghost training in a subway platform and it gives depth to Swayze's apparition character who mostly observes but can't actually participate. In the scene, Swayze convinces a disgruntled other ghost on a subway to help him learn to touch and impact real-world objects. It's a nice addition into another realm where the dead exist.
There is well staged sequence later on that involves Swayze robbing the villain (but sexy) Wall-Street cat he thought was his friend. Of course he uses Woopi as a puppet and she delivers panicked comedy with nuance and measured hilarity while asking for access to accounts with huge amounts of money.
In the end though, this is not a true horror film, it has shadings of a horror-comedy, and some poorly designed groaning hooded ghost that appear to take souls underground--it's almost scary.
It stumbles in the end when it could have been more interesting: why didn't the filmmakers want to do a ghost knock-out fight scene between Swayze and Tony Goldwyn after his death? And Whoopi and Demi basically have a lesbian scene by way of bodily possession--a more taboo direction would be to actually depict that sensual scene between two women while cutting back to Swayze, or thematically end with them--Swayze using Woopi as his physical connection to Demi--in the end Woopi and Demi as sort-of lovers. It's a crazy idea, but the film inspires it.
The film ends on a super-saccharine note, and I wish there was a less cliche way to conclude things. Thinking about how this film was such a success financially and also winning of 2 Oscars, I can't help but feel this film is overrated. It some obvious weaknesses, like all the other films on this list so far. If you want ghost that are scary, this is not the film, if you want ghost that are actually Patrick Swayze in bodily form, then this movie delivers. It's mostly well made, and well written at times, and willing to get funny, but it certainly feels underwhelming and in it's conclusion, plain sappy. - DirectorJeremy GillespieSteven KostanskiStarsAaron PooleKenneth WelshEllen WongShortly after delivering a patient to an understaffed hospital, a police officer experiences strange and violent occurrences seemingly linked to a group of mysterious hooded figures.10-04-17
Here's a new one, The Void starts with a tense murder and leads into a tense hospital standoff where the few inhabitants of the facility become trapped inside, under siege by cultish, white robed anomalies. But the film takes on many forms, jumping into various horror modes: cult-horror, creature feature, slasher, sci-fi horror, and psycho-drama-horror by way of David Lynch. It also seems to be a major homage/tribute to John Carpenters films, most notably The Thing with a little bit of Halloween II. But one can also see The Assault on Precinct 13th and The Fog jumbled up here as well.
The films first half is a pretty solid horror film--building tension, taking dramatic character turns, giving a consistent sense of unease. When the first creature-thing takes shape, its a marvelous practical-effect: finally a Thing-esque atrocity that doesn't resemble any other creature-monster, full of tentacles that gouge out eyes, and a veiny-slime formation that hatches out its back, all while maintaining the the human body host it's engulfed. It's cool and creepy, even if it's liberally influenced by Carpenter's The Thing.
After this the film doesn't quite equal it's first monster reveal and take down. It divulges into a slower, more philosophical, "evolve-from-the-human-realm" amalgam. It gets narratively muddled and looses its freakish-cool. But it still has moments: the ethereally ominous images in outer space, a dark giant pyramid ship looming through haze; and a sub-basement full of zombie-mutations that come alive.
In the end it becomes kind of a mess, and a tad of a disappointment considering its pretty creepy tonal beginning, and it's willingness to invest in the bizarro-practical effects makeup creations. But its narrative ambitions don't quite add up to something richer or more compelling, and shorten the straight-up creature horror the film promises. It at least succeeds in the practical effects department, and throughout, maintains a level of visual and narrative mystery and dread, and that's enough to make it worth-while. But it can't help but feel underwhelming after its initial thrills, loosing its steam in its own garbled ambition. Still, better to be ambitious then wholly unimaginative. The film tries, which is better then a film that doesn't try at all. But ultimately, a better--and scarier--all-out monster ending would have been more rewarding than what we're left with. - DirectorSam RaimiStarsBruce CampbellSarah BerryDan HicksAsh Williams, the lone survivor of an earlier onslaught of flesh-possessing spirits, holes up in a cabin with a group of strangers while the demons continue their attack.10-06-17
No one does the dead like Sam Raimi's Evil Dead series. This is an out-and-out classic in the horror genre--and a film that has garnered as much of a cult following as its predecessor. Evil Dead II: Dead By Dawn, is a fun house of horror gags and relentless low-fi make-up and special effects.
Many have deemed this sequel-remake (?) better than the original, and for sheer pacing and innovated DIY style, those many are correct. I still have a sweet spot for the original though--mainly because there was nothing quite like it until its release, and also because it is, thematically "scarier" while also retaining its camp, with an even more low budget style. But with its sequel it amps up the camp and silliness, but never looses its spook factor. This film has it all: gore, laugh-out-loud dialogue and slapstick, possession, zombies, a ghostly spirit, loads of fog that appears and disappears, inanimate objects coming to life, a severed hand (and headless body) with a killer mind of its own, a creepy cellar, dancing corpses, monster make-up and animation, lots of POV from the "Deadite force," and of course killer trees. What's great about this Kandarian Demon is it's playfulness and always taunting nature before killing its prey.
The best scene comes when the dead mother pops out of the ground in the cellar after Ash is thrown down there. What ensues is a chaotic horror scenario as the still living inhabitants of the cabin get everything from a demon flying in the air, a snake like monster head biting a leg from out of the chained cellar, and an eye squirting out and landing in a victims screaming mouth. Its a perfect cinematic moment: absurd, totally campy, but still somehow creepy. I also love the moments of blood shooting out of walls and out of the cellar door, and the way the blood changes colors in certain scenes: red, black, green, and finally blue. The film works as a comedy as much as it works as a horror film, it's an insane assemblage of exactly what came before (literally mirroring the original at first; as if Ash had never been to the cabin before), and yet somehow something wholly new and refreshing: a kinetic trip through hell, by way of the Loony Tunes.
Put simply, it's a brilliant movie that rivals the original. And while the original is truly a marvel of low budget imagination and spirit, Evil Dead II proves to be one of the most consistently watchable B-movie productions ever made--audacious and face paced, consistently funny and, yes, even disturbing. It's a hire wire act of technical craftsmanship at its creators zaniest peak; a live-wire jolt of self-ware all-out horror pastiche at its most glorious best. There are effects that look cheap, but on purpose. There is actual claymation/stop-motion at work in this film: the trippy corpse girlfriend dancing atop her grave and leaping off into the abyss is genuinely inspired. The film lives as both a remake and as a spoof of its former self, and yet somehow is always remembered more then the original.
That's the true testament to Evil Dead II, is its sheer enjoyability and pure sense of fun. The fact that it is demented and bonkers terrifying if you actually put yourself in the hellish scenario makes it only that much more rewarding. These films are undoubtedly one of my favorite franchises in movie history, and always a pleasure to revisit, and Evil Dead II will always rank among the best of the best in horror/Halloween movies. - DirectorTom HollandStarsCatherine HicksChris SarandonAlex VincentA struggling single mother unknowingly gifts her son a doll imbued with a serial killer's consciousness.10-06-17
Child's Play is not as scary as it was as I remember it being as a pretty young kid--of course nothing really is as scary as it was when you were a kid. Chucky's first film outing was probably the earliest horror film I watched as a kid, pre-Scream, and pre-Halloween. Child's Play is in a way the gate-way film to my horror fascination, and the first true slasher film I watched.
While the movie feels more like a mystery-suspense film, it also has enough moments of killer-doll stalking that makes it a true slasher. The POV moments through Chucky's eyes are clever and well shot. But the best moments are when Chucky is simply pretending to be a Good Guy doll (the hot item toy that every little boy wants). He sits and stares with inanimate eeriness and blinks and talks through his voice-box voice--he's just a doll. The moments of him playing the doll rather than the evil spirit of a killer criminal that inhabits the doll, are the creepiest. Chucky's full-out evil mode is more funny as he curses and talks like some pissed grown up thug. But the animatronics that control and puppet Chucky are actually quite great and well executed.
I've always wondered why the humans can't just kick or stomp on Chucky, and why Chucky always seems to get the upper hand in fight scenes. He must have human strength, although it's hard to convey this physiological impossibility, especially considering his super tiny hands. Still, it's the only logical way these humans suck at taking on Chucky face to face until they blow his heart out in the final scene.
The film is clever enough, but never quite jump-out of your seat scary. A lot of this has to do with the mouthy dolls personality. Chucky doesn't lack personality, but the minute he opens his mouth he takes the film into comedy territory. But for the most part this film plays it straight, at first like a whodunit (even though we all know it's the damn doll), and then toys with the psychological--the boy (Andy) did it, but blames the doll (although, again, we all know it was the damn doll). Once it's well known by the mom and the detective that its not Andy, but actually a possessed "Good Guy," the film turns more into a traditional slasher film, the ending in particular plays out as a killer-chases-you-around-the-house scenario that I love. The ending also throws in the POV of Chucky as he chases Andy, adding some interesting tension, and also some truly great practical effects: Chucky on fire, face melting off, and his severed head and body come back even after being blasted several times by a gun--Chucky just won't die! The animatronic work in the end, with Chucky all charred and falling apart--but still talking and stalking--is a pure horror delight, I mean when his voice glitches out and reverts back to the voice-box voice before dying out, is a perfect coda/cherry on top; Chucky goes out in grisly fashion, but not without putting up a damn good fight first.
The first Child's Play works, it's solid entertainment, and a pretty decent entry into the horror/slasher genre. It may fall short of the first outings of all the iconic 70's and 80's slasher killers (Halloween, Friday the 13th, and certainly A Nightmare on Elm Street--which came out a few years prior), but Chucky has equally carved out his own spot in the genre and become an iconic horror icon. I'm interested to see what the sequels have in store, knowing full well that things get ridiculous and pure silly, but also--and more recently--kind of scary again with Curse of Chucky. - DirectorTimothy BondStarsKathryn LongColin FoxKathryn ShortCarly Beth falls for every prank played on her. So on Halloween, she buys the scariest mask possible at an off limits room at an old store. However, little does she know that the mask has a mind of its own.10-06-17
One of the best that Goosebumps has to offer. On reflection, this was actually pretty creepy stuff for a kids show 2-parter (released as a short film on VHS), and upon revisit its mostly because the titular mask was so scary-looking: demonic goblin of sorts. Carly Beth (The name is terrible, and every time some one says her name so serious, I cringe) can't get the mask off of her, like it's taking over her, and it's a fairly clever, cautionary tale. You wanna-be scary and exact scary revenge (the need to frighten people?), you get what you ask for. I'm pretty sure R.L. Stein ripped this off of Halloween III: Season of the With. Too bad this is Goosebumps too, its purity and morale at the end of the day dampens any real scariness--and the fact that it also is made for kids and features terrible acting and simplicity. As safe as this kids stuff is, it's still very much a Halloween themed slice of nostalgia for 90's kids that like to be a little spooked. I always wanted to go to mask shops around Halloween, primarily because of this episode/short film, and actually had the titular evil goblin like mask for Halloween one year. Luckily the mask came off when I needed it to.
P.S. R.L. Stein introduces and concludes this extended episode and he is just dreadful to watch, scary-bad, and not in the good way. - DirectorAlejandro AmenábarStarsNicole KidmanChristopher EcclestonFionnula FlanaganIn 1945, immediately following the end of Second World War, a woman who lives with her two photosensitive children on her darkened old family estate in the Channel Islands becomes convinced that the home is haunted.10-08-17
The was originally one of my favorite scary movies, after re-watching it last night, I'm certainly less inclined to rank it so high on my list.
The Other's is cold, creepy in measures, and devoid of any real spark. When I was a teenager--or more appropriately, a pre-teen--I thought the Other's was genuinely creepy. Now I just find it bland. Grant it, Kidman is icily decent as the titular mother whose spooked out, but rigid and hard-knocks about her Catholic beliefs. Her talent level up's the otherwise stale atmosphere of the film. And yet it's not enough, she's too difficult to like, and the other characters--including the two children--are standard fare for period film drama, even with "ghosts."
The director, Alejandro Amenábar makes a smoothly realized Gothic atmosphere, and adds a couple great editing and cinematographic flourishes--panning around rooms, the shock of curtains being pulled open when they should be closed. But there are not enough moments of inspiration upon reflection on this film. It a sturdy, solid, sophisticated production, but it's wanton of energy and true scares.
More flashes of style would have benefited the bleak realism of this film, and while I can admire the stripped down, organic nature of film making, with this I would have actually preferred more scary flashes here and there.
Okay, The Others has a couple creepy moments: an old women with fogged eyes behind a veil who should be Kidman's daughter playing on the floor--or those damn foot steps running and opening curtains in the children's room at nighttime, and the sounds of voices in the room when no one else is in the room. This movie teeters in the scary, mostly goes for the creepy and unnerving, but just plainly lands in the mystery with supernatural elements safe zone. It ultimately feels underwhelming.
Its well made, but its twist ending is so obvious now--not just because I know the ending now-- but because it's so blatant earlier on, it spells it out and drags the twist onward and relies on it for it's finale and closing frames like some shocking revelation. They're really dead, not the people they think are the ghosts haunting them, it would be a decent surprise if it weren't for the films glacial pacing and drabness. By the end, we can all but figure it out before the cast does--and we're left with nothing deeper other than that ghosts sometimes don't know that their ghosts, that they can't understand they are actually dead. The idea is clever and pretty interesting, but its execution is too drawn out and opaque, and mostly sterile. More fun, more scares, and more thematic flare would make The Others more enjoyable. I get stately and adult from this, but really, the stateliness ruins this films likability. - DirectorJohn LafiaStarsAlex VincentJenny AgutterGerrit GrahamWhile Andy's mother is admitted to a psychiatric hospital, the young boy is placed in foster care, and Chucky, determined to claim Andy's soul, is not far behind.10-08-17
Child's Play 2 is at times better than its predecessor, and at other times it lacks the predecessors initial intrigue. But at its best it is a better horror film than the original.
Child's Play II is a retread of the original, but without the whodunit elements. But it up-plays the stalker-slasher pastiche in a way that's satisfying enough to make it almost rival its predecessor. I like that the film spends some time building up the foster parents to Andy angle, laying out the kids trauma's of the Good Guy doll possessed by Chucky, and establishing the unique foster family dynamic with the introduction to an older teen girl who is also a foster at the house. I don't hate these characters--the dads uncertainty to taking Andy in seems harsh, but also a realistic fear, especially since Chucky is hot on their pursuit, and posing as another Good Guy Doll "Tommy--" whose not possessed, the foster parents explain.
The direction is also a lot more fun, gone with the gritty south-side of Chicago, and trading it in with the mostly sunny suburbs. The opening also plays up the Good Guy Doll creation process, the sculpting of the dolls, and the eyes balls being dropped into the plastic eye sockets is a creative, effective opening sequence for the credits the play out over--and also sets up the doll factory ending. There are also really well shot scenes here, there is not a lack of style in this sequel, the camera pans across walls with family photos in the foster home, it brings back Chucky's POV shots, and it has a couple well shot over-head, birds-eye (Crane) Shots.
The movie also has more fun with the stalker-slasher elements: Chucky popping up under a sheet to attack the teen foster girl, Chucky locked in a school room closet and then toying with an elementary school teacher, and a goofy-but kind-of scary basement showdown scene; and of course, the extended finale in the toy factory, with its mass toy production assembly lines and machines playing a pivotal role in the chase/try-to-escape/kill-Chucky climax. Chucky's final deformation is horror movie gold, and as his head inflates and his body blows apart, its clear that the creators wanted to rival the first films charred-Chucky body closer.
Child's Play 2 might feel like a retread of the original, and lacks some of the originals tension--it is really just more of the same from the first one, only with a different backdrop and a decent, older female "final-girl" thrown in for good measure. But its a worthy succession that's surprisingly not horrible, and at times more fun to watch. It also doesn't lack in having its own imagination. - DirectorTim BurtonStarsAlec BaldwinGeena DavisMichael KeatonThe spirits of a deceased couple are harassed by an unbearable family that has moved into their home, and hire a malicious spirit to drive them out.10-08-17
What's there to say about Beetlejuice--a lot, actually. Since I've already written more at length about Beetlejuice on a past Halloween/Horror list, I'll just add a little more here.
The movie is a genuine classic, a film that--probably more than any other Tim Burton film--feels like raw creativity and wild imagination on display, able to be what it wants, and do what it wants without some major studio intruding and ruining things. Its a triumph of ideas, slapstick comedy, satire, Gothic ghost story, claymation fun-house, and world-building-other-dimension-fantasy, all rolled up with a tinge of horror and sweetness. The cast is excellent, with truly memorable, all likable characters, and Michael Keaton has never been more fun--or as insanely free to let his freak flag fly. This whole film lets its freak flag fly, and gloriously so. The Day-O dinner scene is one of the best moments in movie history. But the whole film is just simply a masterpiece. - DirectorMatt Bettinelli-OlpinDavid BrucknerTyler GillettStarsCalvin Lee ReederLane HughesAdam WingardWhen a group of misfits are hired by an unknown third party to burglarize a desolate house and acquire a rare VHS tape, they discover more found footage than they bargained for.10-10-17
I made the huge mistake of watching V/H/S 2 last season and not watching the first one, first. So now I got around to the original and it's far inferior. In fact this fist V/H/S installment makes me like the sequel even more now, the sequel ended up being one of the better newer horror films I saw last year--which was a surprise, but now this predecessor makes the sequel feel so much more innovative, and all-around more rewarding, and not to mention scarier.
But this is not to say that this predecessor doesn't have moments of inspiration, or a couple good horror surprises. The first true short--Amateur Night--is wild in the sense that your not quite sure what's going to happen, at first I thought the new recorder-glasses one of the characters gets (and titular POV filmer here) was going to start to see stuff like ghosts, which would have been very similar to the whole digital-eye-implant first act in the sequel. Instead the short devolves into a drunk gang-bang-in-a-motel-room, gone very wrong, as one of the girls that the lead group of frat-guys brings back with them is actually some animal-beast-demon or flying lizard (I don't really know--I guess a Siren?). It's gory, but stupid, and kind of okay for a short first act (I guess this *beep* was adapted into a feature length horror film called, SiREN), and hey, there is a severed penis moment!
The second short, Second Honeymoon, is disturbing, well acted, nothing like the first short other than there is a motel room again, but it's much more subdue; I thought it was Joe Swanberg's outing (since he acts in it), but he directs another short, this ones by Ti West. Out of all of the shorts, this one has a genuinely upsetting conclusion and final twist--others will probably see it coming, but I was quietly surprised. It's decent.
Short three, Tuesday the 17th (a clear pun on Friday the 13th), is just plain silly and poorly acted. However, the killer entity in the woods here is actually a clever creation--the entity (a man?) is all blacked out and fuzzy, glitching out like a bad video or TV transfer (in the credits it's actually labeled, "The Glitch"), but in a human-like shape that can throw knifes and stab you to death. The rest is forgettable, but the idea of the killer as some digital mutation brought into reality is memorable.
Short four, The Sick Thing That Happend to Emily When She Was Younger, uses Skype--or some video chat app on a computer--to tell its story (why and how this got onto a VHS tape, is a true mystery). It uses a ghost story premise--Emily's new apartment is being haunted--pretty effectively. There's your standard little ghost kids popping up, and they probably provided the only true jump scare I got in this whole movie. Ends up the ghost kids are using Emily to harvest a fetus(?)--so they're really aliens(?) and using Emily's long distance (supposedly) boyfriend to achieve the retrieval of such a bodily thing. The plots ridiculous but in the end, kind of surprising. So I lied, this short also gave a fairly decent twist ending. (This is also Joe Swanberg's output).
Short five, or: 10/31/98, plays up the good ol' demonic exorcism scares when some grown-ups go trick-r-treating and stumble onto a presumably haunted house. The effects at the end are pretty decent--bloody hand-prints appear to be smashing on the wall as the costumed men run down the stairs to escape the house, and its conclusion with the railroad tracks and incoming train isn't bad.
The framing device, short six (Tape 56), that delivers all these VHS horror shorts, is the weakest link--as it was in the sequel, too. But here, its just plain bad. And the director of this narrative framing device, Adam Wingard--who I like--gives us no sympathy for these low-life thugs and anarchist. It's nice they all get what is coming to them, but it's also the least enjoyable to watch of any of the other moments throughout V/H/S.
More than the sequel, this first V/H/S is a variable mixed bag, and you definitely should watch it before experiencing the higher quality of V/H/S 2--or just skip this first one altogether. While there are notable things about the film(s) that I liked, some decent ideas and surprises, this first V/H/S is also too slow in the beginning, often too ugly to watch (almost all the guys in this film treat women like *beep* and lacking in general fun--something the sequel gets a big dose of. The potential of this film is fully realized in the second one which not only ups the fun, but also quality, overall scares, and creativity. Sure, I'm certain the sequel had a bigger budget, but the idea of these films isn't so much about budget, as genuine imagination in crafting and executing a short, low-fi, found-footage horror film. And in this sense, V/H/S 2 has better pacing, better ideas, and better effects; its ultimately more consistent in quality from short-to-short as well, (god I loved the Slumber Party Alien Abduction segment, which directly followed the epic blood bath, mind-*beep* of the Safe Haven segment). The sequel is plain more enjoyable--something rare in the horror genre, and especially in the found-footage sub-genre. V/H/S 1, though, sets the template for 2, but underwhelms more then succeeds in scariness, or simple fun. - DirectorMario BavaStarsClaudine AugerLuigi PistilliClaudio CamasoThe murder of a wealthy countess triggers a chain reaction of brutal killings in the surrounding bay area, as several unscrupulous characters try to seize her large estate.10-13-17
This movie demands another watch, mainly because it was way too late and there some ridiculousness happening with a friend--so there was a major distraction about half way through this thing.
I discovered this movie on a Collider's best 70's horror film list, somehow I hadn't really heard of this film from legendary Italian thriller/horror director Mario Brava. And when I read that Friday the 13th (particularly Friday the 13th Part II) was directly inspired by this film, and that it was one of the forefather films of the modern slasher era of horror films--I had to watch this. The fact that this belongs in the wild and highly stylized Italian Giallo Horror sub-genre (literally meaning "Yellow Horror," based off of the yellow pages and covers of trashy pulp novels in Italy), added just another layer of "must-watch," on my list. It's entirely free and dubbed in English on YouTube.
From the get-go, there is a tacky cheapness to the opening titles--screaming of early 70's and just shy of the late 60's. Then there is immediately a murder mystery set in place after a wealthy, elderly lady gets strangled by a rope tied above a doorway in her lavish house. There's a POV shot as the camera walks up to the scene of the staged crime. We see the presumed murderer, but then that man is stabbed in a close-up by another killer. And so the movie ropes you in with a double murder and a whole lot of mystery. But even more than that this film becomes absorbing because of its unique camerawork and vibrant technicolor.
The cheapness of the film, mainly the budget, adds to the films genuine quality here, and the wondrous, almost flamboyant cinematography (there's tons of close-ups, tons of tracking shots, effective zooms, and panning shots), adds a kind of imaginative filmic style that not a single Friday the 13th film really had. The acting is terrible, the dubbing lacking any depth, but just like Friday the 13th films--it doesn't matter. We are not hear for the acting, or any kind of character work, we're here for the thrills of a killer on the loose and some shlocky kill scenes. In this respect the movie delivers, it's way gorier than most American made horror films made in 1971, but the gore is exaggerated, and very low-budget--squirting blood looks like red paint, a close-up of a head getting lopped off is rubbery and very much looking of a prosthetic. But that's what makes these old films so great, and that's again why we love them. It's amazing though how trashy horror films can also be so artistic, and Italian Giallo merges the idea of art film and horror-thrillers so distinctly: emphasizing the visceral as much as plot and innovative kills.
It's a perfect midnight movie, and it's perfect I discovered this and watched it at the early hours of Friday the 13th, because this thing has Friday the 13th written all over it: young, sexualized people hanging out in a house in the woods by the bay, a killer on the loose stalking them; there is even a spear thrown down through two people having sex, killing them both as they're on top of each other--a scene literally lifted out of this movie and recycled in Friday the 13th Part II. But this film did it first, and just as good. In fact everything about this film is so much more kinetic and weirder--it's foreign!--than the Friday films, how I didn't know about this movie blows my mind. I should own this movie, I liked it that much. From the fashion, to the wide and bright sets, to the shadowy killer and graphic (and often silly) deaths, to the sheer sense of fun, A Bay of Blood is kind of magical. As a horror film its effective: a psychic, a serial killer stalker, blood and gore shock scenes, and plenty of ominous moments.The killer isn't the icon like Jason, in fact the killer doesn't really have a mask at all--the scenes with the killer keep the face just out of frame--but the killer still has a scariness to him/her. And while I love the Friday series--and Jason as a slasher--A Bay of Blood just feels more cinematic at times, it has to be because of the Italian flare that has made Italian Giallo horror so reputable. There is more passion here than in most American made slashers, and it doesn't just feel like some product. It's meant to be cheesy and a little cheap, and often cheeky, but just because of those things doesn't mean it isn't an inspired piece of filmmaking.
I'll have to take this whole thing in again--just like I'm going to relive Argento's masterful Suspira this year as well (an even more reputable Giallo Horror film and director). And Giallo horror is now certainly one of my favorite horror sub-genres, I want more! These movies--well, at least this and Suspira so far--demand to be watched as much as any Friday or Halloween movie. - DirectorJack BenderStarsJustin WhalinPerrey ReevesJeremy SylversChucky returns for revenge against Andy, the young boy who defeated him, and now a teenager living in a military academy.10-13-17
Child's Play 3 begins with a real idiotic revival of Chucky that breaks the rules established by its predecessors: Chucky can only transfer his spirit by the "voodoo" spell/curse he must chant over the first person he tells his deadly secrete to. In 3, Chucky just has to to be dragged over melted wax (plastic?) and bleed a little into the vat of said molten wax. The logic is lost, which is surprising considering the creator and writer for all 3 Child's Play wrote this conceit. But after this, the opening credits really deliver in old school visual effects that play behind the title sequence: Chucky is recreated in close up's through the wax and plenty of icky, but artfully realized blood. The scene is creative and rivals the opening credits of Child's Play 2, which similarly realized Chucky's bodily recreation in close-up's.
The movie has a fairly generic opening kill, but is still kind of innovative, if not just elaborate and staged with gimmicks. A part of me believes this movie is hyper self-aware and knows this from the onset: opening titles and all. It's clear Child's Play 3 is going to direct the franchise into more camp vs. actual scares. That being said, its camp isn't a bad direction. This movie is full of camp--gearing us up for Bride.
The military school angle, and having Andy as a teenager now, isn't a bad jump--it's the silly execution of the military school that makes this film inferior to its predecessors.
Chucky's near hair shaving scene, and subsequent kill scene is funny, and one of those totally-see-it-coming moments that slasher sequels love. But overall this movie lacks the kind of colorful character of Child's Play 2, but still manages to have moments of spirit: Chucky switching out the paint ball bullets for real bullets for a military camp-out game called: War Games.
Chucky also going after a new kid to inhabit (since he's technically in a new doll body) isn't a bad move, but also feels poorly written and executed. Why is this kid at this military school? He's too young!
Danny is forgettable in this film--his more grown-up character should be more complex. But this is a second sequel to an okay franchise starter. Chucky's an icon by now, this film plays on that in the most basic way, and it's not all bad. The shooting at the War Games some how feels surprising even though we know Chucky switched the bullets out, and the finale in the haunted mini roller-coaster ride at a fair, is a nice and logical place to have a horror movie showdown.
Chucky's face getting half-sliced off is great, and the animatronics that puppet it are successful in their grisly-finale-Chucky mode. I was hoping for an even more elaborate Chucky stand-off, the setting may be great, but the final moments are mostly a last thought. I wanted a gelatinous-monster Chucky like 2, or a charred and decapitated Chucky like the end of the first one. Instead the severed face will have to do, with a cinematic slowed down scene of Chucky falling and bursting apart into a huge industrial fan. That's satisfying enough. What's not satisfying is the films lack of interest in taking the film beyond it's sequel formula, it almost achieves a satire riff it fully achieves in Bride, but instead its more a bad imitation of the first two films pedigree. It's sufferable--even okay compared to most slasher sequels, but also a waste of time for those seeking genuine thrills or just plain inspired horror fun. It has moments, but they alone don't hold the film up as recommendable watching for genre fans. - DirectorMary LambertStarsDale MidkiffDenise CrosbyFred GwynneAfter tragedy strikes, a grieving father discovers an ancient burial ground behind his home with the power to raise the dead.10-13-17
Adapted from a thick Steven King paperback, this film is middle of the road King adaptation. And he wrote this screenplay! At times eerie and startling--really just at the end--and at other times just plain stiff and dull.
First of all, there is a clear parable about grief here, and the boy getting hit by the ridiculous semi-tankers that continue to rush down the road (even after one of them just ran over a kid) is set up early on; we know someone is getting hit by a truck. So the pet cat gets hit first, then Herman from the Munster's, and neighbor to the new family in the quaint Maine town, advises the doctor dad to bury the cat in the pet cemetery (for some reason spelled sematary here?) conveniently located down a trail in the woods butted up to their new home.
There was supposed to be a demonic Native American spirit that appears in the cemetery, for budgetary reasons we just hear some rocks crashing and some "rustling." Which is a shame, because this movie could use more horror earlier on. Prior to this, Louise, the doctor dad, is haunted by a ghost of a patient that is brought in with a major head injury. I'm not really sure why the ghost is important, or why he's even haunting Louise; even at the end, the ghost guy isn't really here for any good reason and feels rather pointless--and other than a scene that's similar to An American Werewolf in London, he's not even really scary. Anyways, the ghost guy explicitly tells Louise not to bury anything in the pet cemetery, and what does Louise do right after being warned? He *beep* buries the cat there.
Clearly the cat comes back, but is more of a dick, and given its weird eyes and mangy fur, it's totally a zombie cat. I love when the cat throws a dead rat into the bath with Louise. This of course sets up the little boys death, of which the film goes straight into melodrama antics during a funeral scene, and it's actually quite funny how serious it takes itself.
Louise takes his boys dead body and buries it in the pet cemetery...you know, because the cat turned out so great. But grief seems to have taken over and all logic is mute--Louise just wants his young son back, even if his revival is some pissed-off Native American spirit.
When the kid arrives, back from the dead, this movie finally turns into a horror movie. I'm thinking the last twenty minutes of this thing are spooky, and that's all because of the little boys creepy-ass performance. It's the same little kid who did spooky in Wes Craven's New Nightmare, but here he's even younger, and an actual evil spirit. The kid pops out from under a bed and kills Herman from the Munster's, a blade to the helix and then to the face was unexpected and fairly gruesome. The kid taunts the dad, their house turns all haunted and decayed, and there's little boy laughter and giggles that are both funny, but also downright disturbing. The showdown between son and dad plays out like a scene from Chucky (how appropriate). And then for another unfathomable reason, Louise takes his now dead wife's body and buries it in the "sematary"-- that's right, he turns around after ending his psycho-possessed-zombie-kids life and then does the exact same thing with his wife! It's the grief again, the parable is there, but it's also just plain bad writing--and King *beep* wrote the screenplay based on his own book. I bet the book reads better than it does on the screen.
However, when the wife returns from the dead it delivers the films best macabre moment: half her face is missing and she's oozing, and blinded by grief, Louise makes out with her. It's a wonderful gross-out gag, a moment that, along with the dead kid, establishes this films horror credibility. The dead kids performance is shockingly effective, a perfect blend of goofy and the actual disquieting. But leading up to this climax, the movie is more of a drama with uninteresting characters, completely flat acting, and a smidgen of the strange and paranormal. It's a shame there wasn't more thought put into the story, or at least into the rules of the creepy setting it sets up. The direction also doesn't play up mood and atmosphere until its finale--where the real strangeness happens. But on a whole, this film isn't consistent, we don't care about the characters, so we're waiting for the horror stuff, and maybe a good scare or two, but we're left unsatisfied with that, too. But when it seems almost too late to redeem this film we do eventually get some decent horror moments--that are actually quite shocking, too. It's just too bad the movie didn't have a little more energy or creepy innovation sooner. - DirectorNeil JordanStarsSaoirse RonanGemma ArtertonSam RileyResidents of a coastal town learn, with deathly consequences, the secret shared by the two mysterious women who have sought shelter at a rundown hotel.10-14-17
I've wanted to watch this movie for a while now and it's been on my Netflix list for a good year or so. Finally watching it, I realize this isn't really a horror film--okay, yes, it has vampires; and okay, it has enough blood to categorize it as such. But this is not your typical scary-horror film. Other than it's themes surrounding vampires and a chilly atmosphere, this is only horror because of its vampire intrigue.
This is Neil Jordan's return to vampire lore after directing Interview With a Vampire (which is a much better film, and more horror in nature, I might add). Still, Byzantium is well made, sharply photographed, at times visually sumptuous (the bloody water fall and bats flying out of a rooftop hut is stunningly gorgeous and the coolest image here). It is also well acted, especially Saoirse Ronan as Eleanor Webb. Her mother, played by Gemma Arterton isn't half bad either. So the film is pleasant to watch, but also a little adrift, lacking in real tension or thrills unlike Interview before it.
The narrative weaves past and present together in a nice way, and the rules of the vampire Brotherhood add an interesting touch: women vampires cannot create so Clara turning her daughter into a vampire like her directly violates the vampire "law." There are patriarchal subtexts to this female fronted affair. So they're on the run, they don't agree on much, and Eleanor finds a loner human boy she cares for. At times this plays out as a much darker, and bloodier Twilight film, there is the angst and two teens that pine for each other, and one is a vampire and one a human. But beyond that, Byzantium finds richer, more fascinating ways to explore the lore. Eleanor ends peoples lives who are ready to die--mainly the elderly--the nail on her thumb grows into sharp looking weapon, meant for jabbing into throats for feeding. The way its shot is elegant, the way blood looks on a bandage or in a tube in a hospital all have a macabre beauty to it, and as Eleanor craves it, the film portrays the blood in a feverish fetishistic allure. Because of this though, I was hoping for more stylish blood scenes, not an all out gore fest necessarily, but something as lushly realized as those bloody water falls; like after Clara is first turned in a flashback, and baths under its scarlet stream.
I wanted a little extra from the plot, more unease, maybe more heat. While the atmosphere can be absorbing, and the direction very sophisticated and stately, I was hoping for more of a bite. The climax is also underwhelming, lacking much verve or all out blood shed--and that's even with a head being bloodily severed off.
But if there is one thing to be said about Byzantium its that the performances and the characters are the focus, and the idea of a vampire teen from 1804--whose been perpetually 16 for over two centuries--living in the modern world with her prostitute vampire mother--living on the lam, trying to scrape by--isn't a terrible place to find something new in an over-populated vampire genre. It doesn't hurt that there are some lavishly realized visual spaces and moments too.
In the end, however, don't watch this expecting a scary movie, or even a real thriller. This movie is more about mood and is basically a coming-of-age drama with the woes of living an immortal vampire life. So it's more a goth drama with some luscious blood moments. Although with more tension added to the script and even more blood, this could tip more into the horror realm. As it stands though, its a decent story with solid performances and some sharp film-making.
P.S. vampires can walk in daytime here, I'm not sure I like that, I feel like it humanizes them way more then they already are in this movie. - DirectorRonny YuStarsJennifer TillyBrad DourifKatherine HeiglChucky, the doll possessed by a serial killer, discovers the perfect mate to kill and revive into the body of another doll.10-14-17
We arrive at Chucky's full turn into comedy-horror and satire. If the first two sequels toyed at a self-awareness, than Bride of Chucky totally embraces it, and uses it as the primary template. To be honest, the sequels needed a new direction, and certainly a drastic change in tone. Ronny Wu, a Hong Kong action director, takes Chucky down a bold new avenue; and while it's not necessarily revelatory or a complete overhaul, it manages to revitalize the series and make it feel somewhat fresh again.
This new tone and direction of course means ramping up the comedy and one-liners. But it also means the film is more self-mocking and reflective of the genre pastiche its operating in. This is after-all post Craven's New Nightmare and Scream films. From the beginning the film makes clear its going to make references to horror-pop culture, and just pop culture in general: there is a poster of Frankenstein, Jason's hockey mask, Michael Meyer's "The Shape" mask, and a chainsaw representing Leatherface. Then there is Chucky's torn up body from his former films final demise into a huge fan. Chucky's an icon of the genre now, and this film knows it.
While Chucky's stitched together new look is cool, and while he's suitably the same foul-mouthed doll, this movie is really about Jennifer Tilly. She's the perfectly cast ex-lover of Chucky's former human self, and now she wants him back. She makes the first kill just to get his doll parts in her hands, then resurrects him and they torment a goth clad boyfriend of Tilly's in her trailer--Chucky tears his lip chain out, and the film makes clear it's still a nasty slasher, but with way more camp.
Tilly watches Bride of Frankenstein--the clear inspiration for this film riff--while soaking in a tub. Chucky electrocutes her and Tilly gets transposed into a female doll version of Chucky; decked out in a bridal gown. From here the film is all about Chucky and Tiff (Tilly). She dyes her doll hair and paints her nails and puts on black lip-stick; the film also seems to get its kicks from a particular brand of goth, and it works. Chucky and Tiff bicker, beat each other up (it's a love-hate thing), they high-jack a road trip from Katherine Heigal and her teen boyfriend (god I wanted Heigal to get slaughtered early on), they kill John Ritter's character twice, and of course have a doll sex scene (it doesn't quit go there like Team America's puppet sex, but it's still horrendously entertaining when they discuss if their "plumbing" and "anatomy" still works). It's ridiculous, lurid, and trashy fun all the way.
I initially hated Bride of Chucky without even watching this movie all the way thru, I thought its camp ruined the films potential scariness. But upon watching it in its entirety, Bride is actually the most enjoyable Chucky film thus far--even compared to the original. It's not the least bit intense or spooky, but it's chock full of nasty thrills: nails to the face, Tiff getting charred up in a camper oven, Chucky getting shot to death, and of course the disturbing and hilarious finish where Tiff's burned body wriggles on the ground and births a doll child all slimy and bloody--an image probably ripped right out of Ridley Scott's titular Alien. So the films not particularly scary--none of the Chucky/Child's Play films have been that scary--but this film fully knows what it is: a campy, self-aware venture not too different from the tonal absurdity of Jason Lives or Return of the Living Dead that worked so well for them. And out of all the slasher sequels, Chucky has always relied on animatronics and puppetry. Bride is no different, and in fact it tops itself by adding Tiff to the mix, not to mention the gnarly baby birth at the end, capping this film off as silly, but gross, but kind of awesome with its puppetry horror magic. - DirectorRobert ZemeckisStarsHarrison FordMichelle PfeifferKatharine TowneThe wife of a university research scientist believes that her lakeside Vermont home is haunted by a ghost - or that she is losing her mind.10-14-17
We return to our theme: ghosts.
What Lies Beneath isn't as good as I remember it from the turn of the century/millennium, when I was nearing my pre-teen years. That's the problem with re-watching films from a certain, earlier time in your life, you often find them not as great as they once were then, and this film is certainly better upon a first watch, since not knowing its ending makes it come as that much more of a surprise. But it feels like everything is hinged on that ending. Sure the movie has sleek, sophisticated direction from Zemeckis, and two great actors in the lead role: Harrison Ford still looks hot here, and Michelle Pfeiffer looks flawless, too. But the films scariness is certainly lacking for a bulk of the movie, and the fact the movie also relies on it's climactic twist to get things really going in the tension department is also a problem. It seems the early 2000's lacked genuine fun in the horror genre, and relied more heavily on thriller twists vs. actual spooky fun. What Lies Beneath falls prey to this, falling between a mystery, suspicion narrative with a ghost element.
The biggest thing that makes this film feel middle-of-the-road though, is it's scripts genericism towards the characters. It underutilizes its expert leads, especially Ford. While the acting and direction is solid, the script and direction never allows the actors to really break through the standard plot, and Zemeckis doesn't really show a flare for this material. That is until the finale--the big reveal--in which the movie ratchets up the suspense, and in doing so, the films fun. I loved when Ford drugs his wife (Pfeiffer) and attempts to drown her in the bathtub while she's under paralysis. The tub fills up, Pfeiffer can't move but gets her foot to almost nudge the bathtub drain open. The struggle, shot in close-up while Ford is knocked unconscious on the bathroom floor, is the most memorable thing here.
Sure, earlier on there is a whodunit mystery to the film that--if you don't know the ending--is engaging enough. Pfeiffer is a board housewife who gave up her career as a musician, and who becomes suspicious of her neighbor when his wife disappears--it's kind of like Rear Window to start out with. There is also some seance moments that Pfeiffer dabbles with and in which the film delivers its supernatural element: the bathroom and the tub are obvious points of interest here, and the films major foreshadowing for that titular final showdown. There's some ghost moments in a misted-up bathroom, and a scene where Pfeiffer gets all possessed and sultry and says the films kind-of classic line "I think she's starting to suspect something;" Ford says who, Pfeiffer replies, "your wife." There is also the ending moment under the water, where Ford's previous murdered victims corps arises and becomes animated briefly, dragging Ford down to his watery grave. It's a tinge spooky, without going all in on the ghost, back from the dead, themes.
It's a very watchable film, one in which Ford plays against type and is an actual bad-guy killer here. And Pfeiffer is continuously enjoyable. But in the end, it's a slight horror film, lacking much in real frights and lacking in overall fun considering its great cast and a big Hollywood director who rarely directs such genre fare. If you look at this more as a general thriller though, and not a horror movie, then the film succeeds, if mildly so. - DirectorJulia DucournauStarsGarance MarillierElla RumpfRabah Nait OufellaA young woman, studying to be a vet, develops a craving for human flesh.10-14-17
Foreign horror films often get little notice in the mainstream, case in point, last years The Wailing from South Korea, which should be considered a masterpiece in the genre yet not very many people will be speaking of it quite like blockbusters like IT. It's mainly because of subtitles, and also because you really have to seek them out, they don't play in American theaters across the country, either.
Here's another example with Raw (this ones as least on Netflix and will gather some streaming attention). France is full of auteurs--they did coin the term and changed the way we see cinema--and female director Julie Ducournau makes a real big breakout here. She's a director to watch out for. Her film Raw is stunningly unique, well acted, and absolutely unnerving, but also feverish, and full of symbolism.
This is unquestionably a horror film, but also a coming of age drama with teeth--literally. Justine enters into a veterinary school/college, following in her parents and older sisters footsteps. She's a lifelong vegetarian, which, given the films title, is a major plot-point. For one, this vet school passes its time between studies in nutso recreational activities. A hazing ritual takes all the newcomers and forces them to crawl into some dimly lit warehouse, or garage (?) and a door slides open, the sound cuts out, and a raging party is taking place beyond. This is obviously not your typical veterinary college. Newbies have to eat raw animal organs, get blood thrown on them, get their rooms wrecked and strung out in the yard. All this seems to be okay, except when Justine has to eat that titular raw animal part, in which her sister--no longer a vegetarian to Justine's surprise--forces her to not be a pussy and swallow the damn raw animal organs.
Justine has a nasty bodily rash, sees a doctor on campus who peels off some sick, scabby, dead skin. From here, Justine begins to acquire a peculiar hunger for meat--she scarfs down food and tries to sneak burger patties in her lab coat, unsuccessfully. All this while she begins to have a kind of sexual awakening, as well. This movie is definitely about the body, and surprisingly about two sisters. I wasn't expecting Justine's older sister to also be cannibalistic. But that reveal--after an accident with some waxing strips on gentiles, scissors, and a severed finger from her sister; in which Justine gnashes on (her first taste of human flesh)--transforms the films focus from singular to dynamically plural. Still, this is Justine's story overall, and that scene where she eats her own sisters finger is truly disquieting.
In another scene, Justine is having some sort of withdraw, some fever under her sheets at night and something (imagined?) is hitting against her sheet. It's scary, and never really explained what "it" is bothering her; has to be that raw meat inside her. There is a psychological element to the horror here that elevates Raw's more direct and squeamish themes of cannibalism. As much as this movie is consumed with "body-horror," it also is concerned with Justine's uncertain, shocking animalistic unraveling. She transforms, under the allure of flesh and meat, into a sickly fiend. This is absolutely a mirroring of sexual awakening, as Justine craves her male--bi-sexual--roommate. Their sex scene is ravishing and teeters into the macabre as Justine bites into her arm until its dripping in blood, post-first orgasm.
The actress playing Justine, Garance Marillier, deserves a lot of credit for her brave, multi-dimensional performance: from innocent, to awakening, to paranoid and confused, to eerily possessed and consumed with her unnatural desire. The film succeeds because of her, but also because of Ducournau's evocative direction, unafraid to really go there, but not relying on grisly images or constant bloody effects too much either. There's shots cut in like dream scenes in slow-mo: a horse running on a treadmill for testing, and later, a cow; shot in a dreamy, but quietly unnerving, fetishistic way.
Raw has genuine surprises, even the ending--which totally makes sense in retrospect--and it also has disturbing shocks, a jump scare or two, and an overall uneasiness about where the film is going to take you next. The fact that there is an actual interest in the characters, that we feel something--sympathy and fear--for these two girls, makes the movie a true horror-drama. As a shocker, Raw delivers the goods. But there is enough packed into this film to also make it a horror film with substance: beyond the coming-of-age aspects, the film also throws in a sub-textual allegory on eating meat, and also, not eating meat, and takes it to delirious extremes while never laying it on too thick. It's a ravishing, queasy--sometimes darkly funny--balancing act. - DirectorSam RaimiStarsAlison LohmanJustin LongRuth LivierA loan officer who evicts an old woman from her home finds herself the recipient of a supernatural curse. Desperate, she turns to a seer to try and save her soul, while evil forces work to push her to a breaking point.10-20-17
Raimi's return to horror, and Evil Dead territory, is so very welcome; he should really do more films like 'Dead and 'Hell, it's his true forte.
Upon viewing this for the 3rd time this is one of my favorites. It is a shame though that Raimi uses CGI more here than the 'Dead films, but it's also understandable given he was in between Spider-man films. Still, this movie has great gross-out gags: the parking garage scene is classic, the gypsy funeral turning into an embalming fluid all over your face, Alison Loham spraying blood at the bank she works at is righteous, maggots spraying out of the gypsies mouth all over Loham in bed is great, a spit rag slipping into the car and attacking is slapstick horror fun, and Loham looses so much hair here. There is also a great dinner scene with Loham's boyfriends uptight wealthy parents with an eye in a cake and a nagging fly causing issues over the table. A seance scene is very reminiscent of the Evil Dead possession moments. And there is also a satirical edge here that Dead didn't bother with--the bank job, denying a gypsy an extension on a mortgage payment to get a promotion during an actual, real-world mortgage crisis in America, is definitely on point with the times. I also always love Raimi's physicality in his horror: punches, staples to the face, being thrown across a room by evil spirits--Loham (not to mention the gypsy) really take a beating in this film. It's very Sam Raimi, very energetic, very goofy and straight forward. The title literally tells you everything you need to know, and there is no subtly in this film. For only being PG-13 (I would love to see Raimi return to the bloody R of horror), this film still gets away with being gross and aggressive. It's ultimately a rip-roaring blast of a movie, and a horror film not to be taken too seriously. You'll laugh as much as you'll have chills. But that's the whole point. - DirectorFede AlvarezStarsStephen LangJane LevyDylan MinnetteHoping to walk away with a massive fortune, a trio of thieves break into the house of a blind man who isn't as helpless as he seems.10-21-17
Finally, after a year of wanting to see this film, we get to it. Fede Alvarez really proves his style here, if it was apparent in Evil Dead the remake (his first feature), than it's even more defined here. Similar to the 'Dead remake, Don't Breathe operates on a slim script and run-time and doesn't bother too much with character background and stories--it would feel like a determinant if the films he were making really needed more story, but Fede and the writers are more interested in the relentlessness of thrills, and getting to the horror quickly. This thing, like the 'Dead remake, don't waste time and keep things tight, lean, and hard hitting. It's a prefect exercise in suspense, and it's arguably why we go to these kinds of movies, to be suspended in fear and excitement. Fede gets this and delivers, this time with original material and even more confident filmmaking.
Fede films the movie with a real sense for spaces, with camera angles swooping down from aerial pans, tracking around rooms, taking in the spatial tableaux of a house in which the majority of the movie takes place in. There's a great scene in the labyrinthine basement in the house that uses black and white night-vision and where the thieve-protagonist are blinded with utter darkness just like the titular blind "bad-guy," owner of the house they broke into. It reminded me of the Blair Witch a little. Sound is also important here, since vision is such an importance to the action and tension on the screen, then so is the sounds taking place in the house--it is called Don't Breathe for a reason. If the intruders want to get out alive, they have to be quiet, sneak around the blind owner, even when he's right in front of them or in the same room--unable to see them, but sense them. A creak in the floor board could be fatal, and is played to great effect here as a narrative device. If the movie lacks real character depths (I rooted for Alex so much, but he really didn't have any real back story: like, how did he fall in with these robbers? He seems so innocent.) then the movie makes up for it in smart cat-and-mouse games.
Rocky has the most motive here, and she's the clear final girl--much like she was in the Evil Dead remake, even after being possessed and bodily tortured. She wants out of desolate Detroit with her young daughter, (shot like some kind of post-apocalyptic environment; the blind guys house is on a vacant street where he's literally the only inhabitant in the neighborhood--no neighbors to run to here.), to escape her broken home and mother whose courting a neo-Nazi. She plans to make a big score with her thug boyfriend, Money, and Alex--who's dad works for a security company which allows him access to disarming secured homes like the blind vet's, whose housing a load of money--Rocky's ticket out to California. Simple enough premise, and the writers don't dwell on details, they give us just enough to understand why the characters get into what their about to get into.
Money gets shot in the face early on, he was a character designed to die early. From here it's all Rocky and Alex's film, and finally just Rocky's (since she's the most developed, or at least motivated character). The thing is, this film makes you question the morality of their actions: breaking and entering and stealing, literally robbing from the blind. But the blind vet they're robbing isn't quite a saint either, he's got a nasty secrete harbored away in the basement, one that is genuinely surprising and which leads to a truly squeamish scene that involves bodily fluids and a turkey baster. To reveal more about that would really give away too much (not like it matters on this list, but hey, it's such a demented moment I feel like one should keep it secret for anyone who hasn't seen the movie).
Your loyalties are tested here, no one is really a good guy in this movie. But when comparing apples to apples, you ultimately root for Rocky and Alex to get out and survive, and even succeed. That says a lot about some pretty underdeveloped characters with questionable moral judgment. But the blind vet at the end of the day is just truly the more disturbed individual here. But for Rocky, it feels like its a hard-knocks life here, and this is her big test to achieve another, better life, but it also feels like some sort of comeuppance for her.
This movie is a great addition to the home-invasion sub-genre, it feels a little like Panic Room meets When A Stranger Calls, or The Strangers; but without any masks. It's not a slasher, it's not a supernatural film in any way either, and because of this, Don't Breathe feels kind of new for the genre. It's a brutal, but not overtly gory feature, it's got wonderfully tense moments that are pretty much sustained for it's trim run-time, its got elements of other films--Cujo being the most surprising here--but it also feels very much like its own thing. And its all shot through with real filmic verve and a wicked sense of energy and pacing. It's apparent now, two films in, that Alvarez loves this kind of claustrophobic suspense, and movies that are relentlessly alive with sadistic twists and turns. He's a subversive, but also totally entertaining and watchable new voice in horror. And the fact that Don't Breathe was such a hit, both financially and critically, means that he's also a commercial director. I just hope he never looses his edgy sense of fun--he's apparently doing The Girl in the Spider's Web next, which will be a change of pace, but also seems right up his ally. He definitely displays a kind of passion for this material and demonstrates his skill in crafting well executed scares while also maintaining excellent filmmaking and camera skills. I can't wait to see whatever he does next.
Don't Breathe lives up to its title, you'll grasp for air underneath all the tension. It's a great thrill ride, and a near perfect white-knuckle way to spend a Friday or Saturday night. - DirectorDon ManciniStarsJennifer TillyBrad DourifJohn WatersChucky and Tiffany are resurrected by their innocent gender-confused child, Glen/Glenda, and hit Hollywood, where a movie depicting the killer dolls' murder spree is underway.10-23-17
Seed of Chucky takes Bride's absurdity and self-awareness to the extreme. It nearly works.
First off, Glen--the off-spring from Bride--is a gentle, confused doll that wants to find his parents (he's for some reason in England being utilized by a ventriloquist). He's our protagonist, and the films narrator. At first, the film opens as a haunted house, stalker/slasher, as Glen takes on an English family in brutal fashion. But it's all a dream. The film takes us to Hollywood where Chucky and his bride are being made into a feature film starring Jennifer Tilly. The meta-movie of the Chucky movies within a Chucky movie reminds me of Scream 2 and 3, just like their Stab recreations. Tilly is playing herself in a self-deprecating depiction that pokes fun at herself, while also revealing a little of celebrity self. John Waters harasses her as a paparazzi, She wants to sleep with Redman (the rapper) to land a role as Mother Mary in his biblical adaptation. This movie is clearly ambitious, bonkers, and a clear "stab" at Hollywood. It's a shame the movie doesn't fully deliver in the self-mocking department, at least with its Hollywood/celebrity cultural scrutiny. But the film defiantly reevaluates its killer dolls--there's 3 this times!
Tiff vows to ends there killing nature when Glen questions their morals. Chucky says he will, but lies, of course. He takes Glen to kill John Waters and Tiff (trying to do the 12 steps of addiction and recovery) makes a slip (because "Rome wasn't built in a day.") and kills Redman at a dinner at Tilly's. I can't begin to describe this films strangeness, it's sheer gonna-go-there quality, it's pure trashiness. Because John Waters is in this and totally on board, one could view this film as a tribute to Waters' own bad taste cinema, or Ed Wood's B-movie bad tastes: this makes overt reference to Woods Glen or Glenda, a gender questioning film that Chucky's offspring plays right into--is he a girl or a boy; Chucky and Tiff argue over this, leading to Glens ultimate reveal, "confused."
Seed is also more violent then previous installments: throats squirt silly amounts of blood, half of Waters face melts into a grisly deformation, a head gets gloriously lopped off and flung into the air as Tiff and Chucky rekindle their love for each other over killing and blood spattered faces; Redman's inner organs spill out with steam, and Chucky's limbs gets chopped up at the end with satisfying amounts of blood. The gore is never seriously realized, but always extreme. A wink and a nod always follows the brutality, because you can never take this film seriously.
Jennifer Tilly really owns this movie, I would say she's the true protagonist here vs Glen/Glenda. Tilly provides camp, but she also criticizes her career and lack of good roles. This film is certainly not a good role, but it's hard to imagine any but Tilly in this role. She's both herself in mocking fashion, and also Tiff, Chucky's doll Bride. The film doesn't hold back on its unabashed duality and camp, and Tilly does her best--I guess--considering the script and directors vision of her here.
There is also doll tits and Chucky jerking-off, and--yes--a turkey baster full of evil doll semen that drips white gooey unmentionable. This is two films in a row with such a plot element and turkey baster device that drips. Eww. But it adds to the films lurid trashiness, and it's always awfully aware of its terribleness. In some way, Seed is the most honest Chucky film, paying more attention to Chucky's need and desire to kill and questioning it by putting him in a domestic-family dynamic. It diminishes his scariness, but also plays up his franchises satire with goofy emotional undercurrents.
Seed is takes a dramatic plunge into camp, escalating the hellish wonder of Bride of Chucky to an almost nauseating level of camp. It's too much, which may work for some fans, but the fact that it down plays its horror--while somehow being its most horrific venture--makes for a disorienting film, and not always in the good sense of "disorienting." It's never scary, and for a horror-franchise, that's not a good evaluation. But it's also completely entertaining in it's trashy Z-movie way. I get Seed's conceit, but it's difficult to say the film is recommendable to anyone who won't value it's throwaway awfulness. Seed is just plain garbage--yet, upon all its divisiveness, Seed is also kind of smart in a way that only makes sense to those who have endured five movies of this formidable franchise. It makes its killer a struggling dad, a father that wants his son to be a "son," and a killer like him in his image. There's something dementedly twisted here, and the the film provides one of the most bizarre, cheesy entries into its surprisingly ongoing oeuvre.
I just wish the film was slightly scarier, or at least able to land more of its insider jokes. - DirectorOren PeliStarsKatie FeatherstonMicah SloatMark FredrichsAfter moving into a suburban home, a couple becomes increasingly disturbed by a nightly demonic presence.10-24-17
The first Paranormal Activity perfectly sets up a trilogy, and in one particular scene with a medium/doctor, the film reveals a major plot point to Paranormal Activity 3--the prequel. The film is engaging a third or fourth time without being watched for a couple years in between. What I'm saying is that the films rely on such lo-fi effects, that they ultimately hold up in years passed.
The shadow on the door of the titular couple being haunted is truly creepy; and it's nothing flashy, in fact, because it's so subtle of an effect, one could totally miss it. It's the films smallness (never leaving a single, average 2-story house), and "found-footage" gimmick that makes PA so effective. Like The Blair Witch (still the best and granddaddy of found-footage horror), PA uses less-is-more to scare people. This film relies on no-name actors and believable-enough performances to invest us. Mika has a camera, he wants to record any weird activity his wife describes as following her.
It haunts, it taunts, and the duo-cast delivers what's to be expected in this kind of fair. The film utilizes sound greatly here, a throbbing sense of a presence comes over the camera as it records the couple sleeping, then disappears, the movie can get quiet (no score, obviously) and then ratchets up the pulsing, sounds from downstairs in the hallway, or in the very room, or when the wife is dragged out of bed, the bang of footsteps up the stairs and into the bedroom. The absence of a score--like Blair Witch--also adds to realism, but also the eeriness of practical, onset sound effects.
The true star to this film is that camera at night set-up in the bedroom, stationary. It catches that shadow on the door, sheets move over top the sleeping pair, a light in the hallway outside their room turns on then off, those baby-powder footprints (like a claw or a birds feet). And then there is the the wife who stands over the bed watching Mika sleep for hours in one spot. It's genuinely unnerving. So is an old photo that is found up in the attic (located in their closet) that is burned up and inexplicably lodged up there as if some one had just opened up the attic and put it there. It's a moment, seeing that attic door canted open in the closet, that reminds me of a similar, real-life creepy moment in Nic and I's apartment in college--how did it get open while we were sleeping when the only way to unlatch it and move it's door is from inside the apartment? Luckily, neither Nic or I got possessed by an evil spirit and killed people.
PA doesn't break new ground in the genre like Blair did, but it taps into our primal fears of the unexplainable, and the paranormal--and more specifically, the demonic sort of poltergeist witnessed here like home videos. The movie is chilling and effective, and it certainly makes one think again about what goes bump in the night while we're unaware and asleep. If ghost is the general theme this year, then PA is probably the most prerequisite scary ghost story on this list so far. - DirectorDavid KoeppStarsKevin BaconZachary David CopeKathryn ErbeAfter being hypnotized by his sister-in-law, a man begins seeing haunting visions of a girl's ghost and a mystery begins to unfold around him.10-25-17
What a strangely dated movie this is, late 90's and oddly not very scary at all. No evil ghost here, but a ghost that needs/wants justice served to her wrongful murder. And this thing has Kevin Bacon! Who, I might add, is really good here. But so is the whole cast, really. I love Kathryn Erb here as the wife and mom, and also Illeana Douglas as the psychic neighbor (she's always funny in her films).
Early on after a party Douglas hypnotizes Bacon (who doesn't believe in such things) and the film displays some real cinematic cerebralism that is mostly lacking elsewhere in the film. Bacon floats in a theater chair across an empty, dark theater as he approaches a big white screen with the letters SLEEP spelled out across them. The imagery plays out like a moment from a David Lynch film. But the rest of the movie plays it pretty by-the-numbers with its ghost/murder mystery.
This film arrived around the time of The Sixth Sense and ultimately pales in comparison. Both are steely character dramas about death and ghosts, and both features creepy kids that see ghosts and both have twist endings (of which 'Sense did better and with more gravitas). But despite the comparisons, Echos still feels different enough to stand as a reputable thriller. There may only be one jump scare--early on, on a sofa--that kind-of holds up, and the make-up of Samantha could have been creepier, though she's not an evil spirit, so I get why they toned down her spookiness. Still, I want more scares with my dead girl ghosts. There are moments, Samantha appearing in the TV and flipping the channel to Night of The Living Dead, though the little boy tells her not to, that are admirably trying to be creepy. But ultimately, the creepiness doesn't hold up as well as 'Sense' chills have.
But Bacon and cast are watchable here, and the story isn't totally predictable. The little boy has a kind of "Shinning" quality to him, and when Bacon begins to have his boys "Shining" too, the film introduces a paranormal connectivity that could have made for even more interesting ideas. And the characters very blue-collar lives also feels down-to-earth and believable.
Stir' is middle-of-the road for me as a horror film, but it's competently made, and character focused. Bacon and his wife's fight in their back yard while Bacon's digging for "something," is strongly acted, showing that these actors really committed to this material. But as a ghost story it's a little light on scares.