Reviews

Having recently finished the reading of Haggard's masterpiece (which I recommend as one of the best English classic I have read along Stevenson's Treasure Island), I was eager to view this movie, considered the best of all the adaptations made out of the book. Knowing that Cooper was on the producer chair, my expectations were somehow high...

And those were not necessarily met, but it might be because I am so fond of the book. The main fault of this movie is, in my opinion, the fact that the writers decided to drop all the Freudian subtext and philosophical considerations of the story. Well, of course, this is a movie and we were in 1935, but those were the elements that set Haggard's book apart from all the other adventures book. Setting the story in the north rather than in Africa and making Leo Vincey the reincarnation of an English adventurer of the 1500s have riped Ayesha of some of her mystic too.

Yet, there is some things to enjoy in this well made adventure. The settings are appropriate and so is the acting (well, for the era...). The soundtrack is one of the best and the scene of the sacrifice is a must-see (complete with mickey-mousing and a very interesting choreography!!!!!). The first apparition and the ending of Ayesha were worthy of Haggard's character too and are more than well-done (althought Helen Gahagan is not as beautiful as Ayesha is supposed to be, but still: who can be THAT beautiful... It might explained why Leo Vincey and Holly are not so overwhelm by her presence as they are in the source!!!!!!!!).

To the credits of the writers, they have preserved some of the key scenes of the story (the scene with the cannibals and their judgement by Ayesha are prime examples) and give the titular character enough of her self-awareness and pride to make her a juicy role for Gahagan (it's a shame that she were not able to make another movie for she obviously have talent).

This is not as well-made and interesting as King Kong, but it is still a good movie, complete with adventures and mystery from the dawn of time (Indiana Jones was not the first to make such discoveries!) And you're likely to appreciate it more if you have not read the book... but this one is much, much better!!!

I think Clive Barker deserve more credits than is usually given to him. Take, for example, this movie, "Lord of Illusions". Many people and critics disliked the film... And after viewing it, I must say that I disagree with most of them. "Lord of Illusions" might not be another "Hellraiser", but it is far from a stinker, eh! (We should add that Hellraiser is, anyway, a tough act to follow and, sadly for Barker, most people compare the rest of his oeuvre with this masterpiece rather than analyzing the movies for what they actually are.) Less darker than the aforementioned "Hellraiser" or the underrated "Nightbreed", it have enough atmosphere and suspense in it to maintain interest up to the end credits. The movie begins in a typical Barker fashion: a cabin in the Mojave desert, its walls full of satanic grafitis, a so-called magician preaching the End of the world to an audience that clearly drink its words... and a series of instruments of torture (to bind the said-magician) that could easily been stolen from a bunch of Cenobites!!!!!!! What might distract and somehow leave some viewer hungry is the fact that right after such a killer opening, Barker set the story in a very shining Los Angeles and very few fantastic elements until the climax. It makes "Lors of Illusions" clearly one of his less dark movies.

But like his other flicks (including the very excellent "Candyman" which he wrote and produced), Barker have created a very original movie... It may not be perfect, far from it, but anyone that like to see some freshness in their horror movies can pick up any Barker's film, including "Lord of Illusions". And Barker did a good job as a director...

Oh! And there is a very beautiful Famke Jennsen in her pre-X-men era... As usual, she's superb...

Along with "Le pacte des Loups", "Vidocq" can be spotted as the beginning of a french invasion in horror and fantastic genre. Viewing it 6 years after its first presentation on-screen, when French cinema has now produced such chillers as Haute Tension or L'intérieur, its easy to be impressed with the path the genre seems to follow in this most improbable country... Although Horror french movies are not ALL good, "Vidocq" is a prime example of a good and original piece of work coming from Moliere's land (and you should also pay close attention to the other movies named above...).

While the story behind this gorgeous movie (every single frame is a "tableau") is pretty simple, there is much to love in this flick. All actors are quite good and every single characters is so well defined that, even with few words, the viewers can be delighted with their playing (Dussolier is especially good...). Costumes and settings are part of the fun here: with digital effects used with overwhelming intensity, Pitof have created a world that tap easily in our Gothic sensibility, yet the few historical events (the tensions between the people and the government is somehow palpable though we don't see much of it: it creates an ambiance of decadence that permeates every scenes) depicted here and there help keeping a strange aura of reality to this very improbable story... As I said: its clearly part of the fun...

As the aforementioned simple story told before, Pitof edited his movie in a very energetic way, the scenes flowing easily from present to past and thus maintaining the viewer's interest. It helps that it begins with a Bang: the titular character being killed by the criminal (and what a criminal!) he is after in an industrial setting that could be hell (it simply have to be seen...). After that, a journalist, stating that he is Vidocq's official biograph, is searching for the truth: what happened to Vidocq and who killed him... And thus begin the darkest ride into the darkest sides of Paris ever filmed... with a satisfying punch in the end... This ending is good in a way that make the movie interesting to watch again in the lights of this very last information. Another interesting point: the story of Vidocq and his colleague Nimier, being told during the opening credit: keep your eyes open to read every newspaper's titles that goes here and there among the artisan's of this movie and you will have a complete fleshed out background for those characters...

All and all, a very good and deliciously dark flick that would satisfy those weary of the mainstream horror cinema... This is not a film to read about. To fully experienced it, you have to see it... Believe me!

Aja's and Levasseur's "Haute Tension" is simply one of the best horror movie of the last decade. Cinema historian Alan Jones put it in his list of 50 horror canons, by the way, and with good reason: this bloody-well done (no pun intended!) and vicious flick is as visceral as any real good horror movie should be. It's best quality is that it tap instantly into this powerful sensation that we, horror aficionados, revel in and that is called fear... And Haute Tension provide such feelings aplenty and will leaves even the casual viewer breathless as the credits roll... Wow! The well-titled Haute-Tension (the US title "Switchblade romance", while being cool, tends to somehow spoiled the end) is a variation on a overused horror theme: that of the slash killer... But Aga and Levasseur reworked the theme so well and with great proficiency that you forget the scent of old it can have per se. The killer is incredibly horrible and... human. This is no Freddy or Jason... And his "humour noir" is not funny at all. It is simply vicious. The murders are never gratuitous but showed into their "glorious" horror, Aja making the right balance between imagination and actually viewing the piece (the murder of Alex's mother is a prime example...) It will make the most jaded horror fan winced...

The tension goes on until the end, as Alex and Marie tries to get themselves out of the hands of this killer... (the first scene during which we see him says it all about him... enough said). And there is the famous twist for which this movie is so well-known. Personnaly, I really liked this twist: it really add to the movie, which change pace and genre (it becomes less atmospheric and more gory...), and make the movie a more rewarding experience as the viewer as to think about what make it turns so... (and if you kinda don't get it and are not able to let yourself immerse in this nightmare, well... I personally suggest that you listen the commentary track from Aja...).

This movie is not about characterization: every character is simple enough... This is not about physically nice people either (you will see that is not your average Hollywood made PG-13 teen horror movie): Europeans have a knack to avoid such bad tendencies (with the notable exception of Italian horror... but that's another story entirely!). This is about fear, terror. Pure and simple terror (and for another example of a movie that provides fear with equal proficiency, see The Descent). It is really good that in our days of horror remakes (that few are even horrible when compare to the originals) and post-Scream (wich is a really good movie, mind you!) teenage movies era that young horror auteurs like Alexandre Aja and Gregory Levasseur remember what a horror movie is suppose to be. And we should be deeply thankful that Haute tension exist.

What a great director David Cronenberg is. Whatever he touches becomes gold: in every movies he directed (most of them, horrors), there is so much more to gain than pure fun that its easy to be overwhelm by it... But he rarely make movie for the casual viewer and, although A History of Violence is easily his most commercial movie to date (that is the sole reason why I give it a 9 instead of a 10), there is more in this flick than the usual commercial all-public movie... and this "more" is understandably the Cronenberg touch.

Cronenberg is well known to make movies that the viewers are invited to search meanings, though he never gave the answers: as I said in other movie comments: it's part of the reward that comes with the viewing experience. And so is the case with this really intelligent movie: it's not about suspense or surprise ending, it's about violence and the way, as an audience, we react to it... and the way we may use it in everyday life. While rather sparse, the violence in this film is always quite realistic (with the results showed in typical Cronenberg sensibility, so it's not for the squeamish...) never gratuitous... Which may be why the audience may be led to embraced the violent counterpart of Mortensen... It's so much easier since Cronenberg take the time to let us bond somehow with the Stall's family and the deep love between Tom and his wife.

This is a real intense movie, even if you know already the story, believe me: and that is the part of Cronenberg's talent. He and his crew worked with a well written script and everyone gave it its due. The performances are stellar: Mortensen and Bello are quite touching (and really intense and passionate), while Harris and, especially Hurt, are simply juicious in unconventional mobster role... And the lines everyone delivers are not clichés, so you're in for an interesting ride (again: even if you already know the story, which was my case when I first saw this movie)...

Anyway, except for the soundtrack (and even that may be part of the process to make the audience connect with something that looks at first glance an average movie, with average characters, etc.), there is few clichés in this "commercial" movie. The action sequences are not made to be artistic but realistic and there impact is thus quite enhanced. And, since everybody is easily attracted by sexuality, it is well known that Cronenberg always approach this side of human life with, well, few taboo... I'm sure you won't see often, in a commercial movie (again, I said it), a couple so much in love do the 69... (oups!) Well done...

Again, Cronenberg and his fine cast have made what is easily one of the best movie of 2005... That it seems almost already forgotten is a shame...

There is no denying: Don Coscarelli is a great director, with a knack to communicate his enthusiasm. When exploring his oeuvre, we should also take into account his tendency to create original movies. The Phantasm series, while inconsistent, is one such example as well as the excellent Bubba Ho-tep. Well, what about Coscarelli's Master of Horror entry? Considering every critics about this flick, it seems that "Incident" is a love-it or hate-it affair. For my part: i'm in the former category. It may be at first just one more slasher movie, but I think there is more than meets the eye. An interesting subtext about survivalism culture and science, an heroine full of resources (a rarity in these kind of flick!) and a real twist-ending that is hard to perceive before you're there (and a satisfying one to that!!!). What more can you ask of a one hour movie, hey? Yes: you can ask Coscarelli's stylish direction which is truly effective here (and, contrary to the today's style of torture movie, Coscarelli is of the old school of "seeing less and feeling more"): the photography is great, the tension of the run is there and the actors are well directed. Add the editing, which switch from past to present to past smoothly and creatively and you have a sometimes disconcerting slasher movie (it offers some hints of characterization).

One more bonus here: a delicious cameo by Phantasm's Angus Scrimm. That performance is worth the renting alone! And I personally disagree with those who deplore the fact that we don't know much about Moonface and Angus Scrimm's character. Why do we need to know about them? This story is tell from Bree's point of view and she have no means to know about them. The only thing that matter to her is to survive and that's okay. Just let your imagination run wild: you can be surprised by how rewarding it could be and its good to have such auteur as Don Coscarelli who can understand that pleasure!!!!!!!!! It may not be as original or disturbing as such other Master of Horrors entries, but it is much more interesting than most horror remakes or teen flicks that pervade the megaplexes these days... and that is enough a good reason to see it. You need another reason? Here it is: Don Coscarelli.

This is a strange little horror flick that is sure to leave mixed reactions from viewers... The main weakness of this movie is, well, it don't seems to really have a plot or, if you prefer, there seems to have no logic, no signification, to what happen on screen. There is no apparent reason for the existence of a parallel universe neither... and, because of this weakness, it's not easy to get involved by what actually happen to the characters...

And yet, there is a little something in this movie that make it above the complete average... Every scene that happen in the "world of darkness" are well crafted and dense with atmosphere. There is also some well-made shock scenes like the one with the embalmed corpse or when the "dark" side of the main character is watching a videotape of what happen when she's sleeping... It could make some viewers nervous... which it did to me and that's the point of looking at that kind of movies!!!!!!!!! I like to see this movie as the work from a director graced with a disturbing imagination whom may have lacked the focus to make a greater movie... (and well written script). When all is said and done (and I liked the bloody finale of this movie...), Dark Corners is still a more rewarding experience than the average PG-horror movie that plagued the megaplexes these days...

I've watched this "horror" classic (in his "Rough Guide to Horror Movies", Alan Jones put this movie in his list of the 50 canons in horror history) recently (it finally came into DVD just this month!) and was greatly impressed by it. In our days, when so-call "torture porn" and teen-oriented horror flick seems the norm, I think it's kind of a good lesson to come back to movies like Withcfinder General.

Indeed, this movie have a lot of darkness put into it. While it may seems rather smooth by today's standards (Hostel, Saw, anyone?), the way this movie is crafted somehow gets under the skin (much like the 1974 version of Texas Chainsaw Massacre compared to its 2003 remake). There is a unrelentless feeling of despair and cruelty that permeate the movie: from the shocking overture scene to the exhilarating climax during which Ogilvy slash Price with an axe like the madman he became, Witchfinder General is pervaded with many scenes of torture and characters of very, very low morality.

What this movie do better than the average torture porn is to left some of the (very real) horror to the viewer's imagination. I already said in an other review (Call of Cthulhu) that I believe it's one of the best side of yesterday horror, and I believe Witchfinder General prove me right. Reeves never show what Hopkins (Price) did to the Ogilvy's love interest, but it's clear she paid a high price for her uncle's life... And what we may imagined can easily be far More monstrous than what we might have seen (James Whales did something like this in his "Frankenstein"...).

On top of all this, there is the great Vincent Price in the titular character. Price is a great actor and Mathew Hopkins is one of his best role: controlling all his legendary mannerism, he create a character that seems to breathe evil!!! Hopkins is somehow far more creepier than Roderick Usher... and it means a lot!!!!!!!!!!!! A great movie about how hard times may turn humanity into monsters, I give it only a 8 out of 10 only because this movie have at least one flaw: it clearly shows it came from the 1960s...

A highly recommended horror movie (especially if your a Vincent Price fan...)

Since I learned that this movie existed, I've done anything I could to get it: being a big Lovecraft fan, Call of Cthulhu is simply my favorite text from the misanthropic horror author. So, is what have always been called "the unfilmable" a success? Yes and no, and this adaptation is definitely not for everyone... but then so is Lovecraft's writings! In just 45 minutes, this movies is certainly the most faithful adaptation of a Lovecraft story I've seen so far: everything from the short story is there and the writers were careful not to add anything that might have expand or change the story. Even the way the story is told is faithful to Lovecraft (by a first and a second narrator).

What set this movie apart in 2005, it's the way it have been adapted: taking the concept of the story being set (and written!) in 1926 to the extreme, the filmmakers made the movie a silent one, in black and white and even add some grains to the images!!!!!!!! So, to really appreciate this movie, you've got to accept this daring concept.

Does it work? My answer is yes, somewhat. Indeed, settings made according to the rules of German expressionism are perfect to represent the mysterious city of R'lyeh. The props (documents and statues) are simply gorgeous. The music is more than adequately atmospheric. And the apparition of Cthulhu, taken in the concept of a 1926 movie, is good (in stop-motion, mind you!!!!!!!!!!) if not terrifying. The black and white images enhance the atmosphere and, like the movies of its time, some scenes are left to the imagination of the spectator (which, in my opinion, is a plus).

The major flaw of this funny and daring adaptation is the acting which is uneven sometimes. But, then, the story is more about atmosphere and despair than characterization...

A good example of the vivacity and inventiveness of horror filmaking, it's also a must-see for any Lovecraf fans. But not for all taste...

Any horror fans should take look at this underrated horror movies coming from the glorious days of Universal in the 1930s. While Dracula and the Monster had struck deeper into our imagination (and they are still great movies, mind you!), The Black Cat is certainly more daring, especially if you put it in context...

First things first: we get Lugosi and Karloff for the price of one movie, and that, in itself, should be enough for a great movie evening! The pair are equally delicious in their respective role (and Lugosi get to play what looks like the good guy!) and, luckily for them, the script of this somewhat intelligent movie give them plenty to work with...

The script is another major point in this fascinating movie: while anyone would know who are Dracula and Frankenstein and what will happen in their respective movies, in the Black Cat, is not that evident: even Lugosi in the role of the "good" guy seems to walk a dangerous edge between good and evil. Definitely a rarity for the era. And add a satanic ritual thrown in for good measure and what more can you ask of a movie that can only surprise you in every scene??? Then there is also the setting, which looks still great and original more than 70 years later. The manor is not a Gothic castle, filled with laboratory and abandoned dungeon. Instead, we have a disturbingly modern house inspired by the Bauhaus movement and, believe me: it's perfect!!!!!!! The sole thing that take me down sometime, is the happy couple with the never evolving David Manners, whom, it's well known today, disliked playing in movies. Altought Manners get some good lines sometimes, those characters certainly are here solely for the purpose of being toys for the major: Lugosi and Karloff... But, even if they get of there alive, the climax is quite satisfying, with a delicious confrontation between Karloff and Lugosi.

In any case, a must see... far more superior technically and lyrically than Dracula...