It's October baby....Horror flick time!

[laagi]

Not a big horror buff to be honest. But I recently watched Haunt and Crawl. I can highly recommend both although I did like the latter just a bit more. It's also worth mentioning that neither had a huge budget. Unlike IT Chapter Two which I found way too long and overall pretty disappointing.

[Drunken Monk]

8 minutes ago, laagi said:

Not a big horror buff to be honest. But I recently watched Haunt and Crawl. I can highly recommend both although I did like the latter just a bit more. It's also worth mentioning that neither had a huge budget. Unlike IT Chapter Two which I found way too long and overall pretty disappointing.

I was considering watching Haunt last night and will be watching Crawl tonight. i'm glad to hear both are worth a go.

[Secret Executioner]

@Drunken Monk  Just the look of Chucky on the artwork feels off for some reason... Not sure why, but it rubs me the wrong way.

 

 

Second review, this time we'll be looking at an Italian Jaws cash-in directed by Enzo G. Castellari (The Heroin Busters AKA Drug Street, Escape 2000) called (The) Great White AKA The Last Jaws (!) AKA The Last Shark (original title: L'ultimo squalo) and released in 1981.

A coastal town has a windsurfing contest going on, but trouble arises when a big (and pissed off) great white shark starts killing people venturing in the water. Naturally, much like in the original Jaws, the mayor refuses to cancel the contest and disaster ensues. But luckily, a shark hunter (Vic Morrow) and a scientist whose field of expertise happens to be sharks (James Franciscus) are here to help try and stop the marine monster.

 

This film is a bit of a mixed bag. On the one hand, it's mostly boring with rather unengaging characters - the focus on the contest leads to a lot of time spent with teenagers participating or friends of contestants, including a rag tag team attempting to kill the shark (but to no avail). On the other hand, the parts involving the hunter and the scientist are more interesting, seem more thought out and even have some suspense as we see them get trapped in a cave or the boat being attacked by the shark. There are also some random subplots, like a guy neglecting his son and meeting his demise trying to kill the shark in a scene that's rather hilarious for unwanted reasons. 

Cause the movie also has some rather unintentional comedy. The rather poor acting in parts helps, but it mainly comes from the shark (ironically enough). The shark prop looks ridiculously fake at a lot of points - especially when the movie cuts to stock footage of actual sharks -, and that shark is amazingly smart. Not only can he trap people in underwater caves, but it also jams a boat's propeller or drag some wooden pier offshore to feast on the people on it in a final scene where the bad prop shines in all its glory. 

But in spite of that, the movie manages to have suspense and tension - notably towards the end as the two central characters have a solid plan to destroy it -, there's some rather covincing gore and the footage involving real sharks shows how impressive and unsettling these creatures can be. Some of it is just one swimming underwater, but whenever someone uses meat as bait, you can be sure there'll be impressive footage of a shark catching/chewing something and/or having its mouth wide open and showcasing its big teeth and how big its mouth is. 

 

My call ? More of a so bad it's good movie than a real masterpiece, though it has the excuse of being made on a low budget. That said, some scenes still manage to have tension and suspense, and I liked the real shark footage (but I love animals, so it may not be for everyone). Still, the characters are too one-dimensional as you have the rotten politician, the annoying teens, the neglecting father who's too absorbed by his work, the scientist and the hunter getting into arguments... I kinda enjoyed the reaction of the scientist when the journalist covering the story (who was shown as being alll about getting a story and having pretty much no morals, like asking the cameraman to film the pier while it's attacked) wants him to speak on TV and the guy just punches him. That's how one may feel about those journalists who cover live stories and come across as blood-thirsty monsters not caring about people's feelings or whether what they're doing is okay (morally, for the people's safety or in whatever other terms you may think). Anyway, I wouldn't recommend this if you wanted a really scary animal horror film - I'd rather suggest the Spielberg movie or something like its forrest equivalent, the very solid Grizzly for this -, but if you want to have a fun hour and a half with a low budget movie, this could be up your alley.

Fun fact: due to the movie's similarities with Jaws and its sequel, Universal and Steven Spielberg got the movie pulled out of US theaters almost immediately after its release in 1982. As a result, the film has remained hard, if not impossible to see for our American friends for a long time, though they may have come across releases from overseas. It seems things have changed as IMDb lists a handful of US titles for this one.

Quote

USA	Great White
USA (video title)	The Last Jaws
USA	The Last Shark
USA (alternative title)	The Great White

An other interesting potentially Jaws-related aspect is how some posters had a gigantic shark attacking windsurfers with the central one having a "3" on the sail... Maybe an attempt at posing as then-unreleased Jaws 3 - a Spanish title actually containing the number 3 in it, that wouldn't shock me.

Quote

Spain

Tiburón 3

 

[Secret Executioner]

We're staying in Italy for a Lucio Fulci classic - City of the Living Dead (original title: Paura nella città dei morti viventi) (Italy, 1980)

A priest commits suicide in the cemetary of a cursed small town, which leads to a gate of hell opening and the dead rising from their graves. While the town is coping with bizarre events, a psychic and a journalist from New York are caught in a race against the clock to close the gate before All Saints' Day.

 

Well, there's one gross movie - between a girl puking her organs, a maggot storm and some very elaborate make-up for the undead, you get more than your share of gruesome, disgusting sights. And yet, this is part of what makes the movie so good. The gore and the gross corpse/ground related imagery don't look cheap and the scares/creepiness are all for the better - unlike the very fake shark of the previous movie, just to name a counterexample where bad FX kind of ruin the movie. But there's more positive stuff to say on the movie beyond that. The movie benefits from a very good cinematography overall. The town where the bulk of the movie takes place has a very eerie atmosphere with wind and lots of fog, and many scenes are set at night adding to the tension as the living dead tend to have teleporting powers and can randomly appear or disappear out of nowhere - that results in some good scares thanks to the make-up effects and the very unsettling look of the priest. A camera trick I noticed was often used in the movie is the camera slowly panning away to a side to reveal something like a corpse or some other gross stuff just near the unsuspecting characters.

Speaking of, the characters are overall likeable and have interesting predicament. The journalist (Christopher George) is kind of a loudmouth but I liked his character and his dry humor, the psychic (Catriona MacColl, whose venture in the horror genre was limited to this film, The Beyond and House by the Cemetary, AKA Fulci's Death Trilogy) isn't that interesting but is very central to the plot and has quite a stressful scene in which she's buried alive, there's a psychiatrist (Carlo de Mejo, also seen in Fulci's House by the Cemetary and Manhattan Baby as well as Luigi Cozzi's Contamination) who is all around very nice and interesting, especially in how he deals with the paranormal situation, and there's a patient of his who believes she's having a freak out when attacked by zombies - a bit of an odd character, but she has moments and

Spoiler

gets killed TWICE (once as a zombie) in pretty gory ways.

Another element that makes the movie stand well and have such an heavy atmosphere is the soundtrack by Fabio Frizzi. It's some really atmospheric stuff, sounding like some early 1970s progressive rock - at least it reminded me of that - at times, while also being heavy on drums/percussions in more eerie moments, some "chants" adding to the mood of those themes. Overall some really good stuff, it fits well with the movie's atmosphere and visuals, and is interesting to listen to on its own.

 

My call ? Totally worth checking, though I'd say it drags a bit in the final act in spite of being a rather short movie at 83 minutes. The characters are likeable and overall realistic (no beyond stupid jackass here), the cinematography is great and the soundtrack is appropriate and very enjoyable. Of course it's not for the faint of heart with some pretty gruesome imagery here and there, and some scenes can make those who are claustrophobic or don't like crawlers uncomfortable.

Speaking of, those scenes were really hard to film for actress Catriona MacColl, as she had to spend a lot of time in the fake coffin for the buried alive scene and she really hated crawlers, causing her to freak out a few times during the filming of the maggot scene. From what I read, the filming of this sceneleft some mental scars on her as she'd have nightmares of it for years. Major kudos to her for filming only three movies, but three of the possibly most demanding Fulci pieces.

 

Fun fact: there has been a lot of speculation as to the ending, whether it be the origin of such an oddly done finale or the meaning of it. IMDb mentions damage to reels forcing an impromptu recut... 

Quote

 Some say the editor spilled coffee on the footage of the original ending, forcing the crew to improvise.

 

Quote

The ending was tacked on because the negative of the original ending was destroyed in the lab.

 

... or Fulci changing his mind well after filming.

Quote

Some say Fulci changed his mind about the end after the shooting was complete, and this was the best they could do.

The booklet that comes with the release of the movie I have (the French collector edition by Neo Publishing) mentions the latter. The original ending was apparently some very basic happy ending but Fulci and editor Vincenzo Tomassi were forced to face the fact it simply didn't work (and was at odds with the rest of the movie, a very girm picture). Tomassi thus trimmed the ending and Fulci

Spoiler

added a scream (by Catriona MacColl) over a still of the child running towards them. This bizarre ending is very head-scratching, but a widely spread interpretation is that the boy is actually supposed to be a zombie.

 

[Tex Killer]

On 10/2/2019 at 10:27 PM, laagi said:

Unlike IT Chapter Two which I found way too long and overall pretty disappointing.

They should have made it to one movie, even as watched part 1 think skip #2. Seeing original in past hardly nothing extrasuper available in 2nd flick.

 

Uhm, not sure what Halloween horror movies will be but can say it will be italian or spanish. Or both. Not have any american horrors in unwatched pile...

 

Edit;have pet cemetary remake, that will do.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Tex Killer

[Drunken Monk]

I watched The Strangers: Prey at Night yesterday. It's a far cry from the first film but it's a competent slasher. Slightly above average, I think. There are some odd 80's power ballad choices and it does feel like they didn't quite know how to end it but, all in all, a fun and breezy little watch.

[AlbertV]

On Tuesday, I watched Beast of the Yellow Night for the 1st time and it is a strange Filipino-U.S. co-production in which John Ashley turns into some werewolf golem looking monster.

Last night, I watched for the first time in years, My Mom's a Werewolf, sort of a Teen Wolf-vibe with John Saxon's werewolf being a highlight. One of the funniest scenes happens towards the end when our mom's husband sees both her and Saxon (as complete werewolves) battling it out and his face and hair both turn pale white and he goes "Excuse me" before walking away.

[Secret Executioner]

The Phantom of the Opera (USA, 1925)

A mysterious masked character dubbed "the Phantom" lives in forgotten prisons underneath the Opera of Paris. He also causes mayhem there, murdering the ones coming too close to his lair and sabotaging performances in orde to make a young girl named Christine a big star out of love for her. After he kidnaps her, she manages to meet with her fiance - a vicomte named Raoul - during a legendary sequence - in color, no less - and they both plan an escape, but the Phantom won't let her get away. Meanwhile, various people turn out to have been investigating the Phantom, and soon Raoul finds a guide to go track the Phantom all the way to his lair while the employees of the opera rush the place's lower levels to find and deal with the monster once and for all.

That summary is pretty much the whole film, but I feel like the story is well-known enough to afford being posted rather exhaustivly, though I left out some details and the ultimate fates of our characters. 

 

This movie and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (Germany, 1919) were my first exposure to silent cinema. And I was lucky as both are really good. I discussed the German classic previously, so let's stay focused on our Phantom. A notable element is the titular character, a masked man who roams under and within the Opera of Paris. Played by Lon Chaney, he is a very charismatic and intimidating figure when you see him masked. The way he's filmed, the exaggerated performance by the legendary actor and the very eloquent way he talks make him a very interesting character, and one you may fear even more. Adding to this is his appearance at the ball as a character dubbed Red Death. His presence is even more imposing in that he manages to get everyone to turn their attention to him and doesn't get crap from anybody. The scene being in color adds to the mystic and the color makes the scene stand out, though the copy I have being fairly deteriorated to begin with becomes fairly hard to watch and looks rather messy at this point while the rest in black and white looks decent enough. The movie is also notorious for the scene where Christine sneaks up behind him and removes his mask, revealing his horrendously disfigured face. The expression he makes probably added to how scary the scene was and may explain why people in the audience supposedly fainted when seeing it back in the day. Nowadays though, I feel the face of the character is too well-known for this scene to have such an impact - especially when you have stills with an unmasked Phantom on the DVD cover - while no picture of the unmasked character had been leaked before its release, and it's said Catherine's reaction is actually actress Mary Philbin reacting to a mask she hadn't seen prior. Still, there's a tense build-up and the music is pretty fitting for such a dramatic reveal. The unmasked Phantom still has a quite intimidating and unsettling look, his face horribly deformed being further deformed by very exaggerated grimaces whenever the character speaks. The package of the DVD i have claims it's one of his greatest and most memorable performances, which I agree with.

 

I mentionned the music, and I must say I really enjoy the score used on the DVD I have. Much like with The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari I have no clue whether it's something special or the actual soundtrack. It consists mainly of classical and baroque pieces - I could only recognize one piece for sure, Schubert's "Piano trio in E flat, opus 100 (second movement)" that one can also hear in Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon (UK/USA, 1975) - , which is both appropriate for a movie set in an operahouse and a bit awkward when the music clearly doesn't match what's happening in the movie. I noticed some tense moments having rather mellow music to them, while something more sinister or dramatic - stuff that can be heard in other instances in the film -  would fit better.

These scenes also suffer from some undercranking that makes anyone panicking or running look obviously sped up, something that I found often happened in old movies but feels rather funny in spite of the situation, like a piece of equipment falling off on the audience during a performance or a mob rushing the opera in search of the Phantom. 

 

My call ? I'd still recommend this - it has great performances (though Lon Chaney overshadows everyone, as you'd expect), the sets are very nice and elaborate (some being re-used from the 1923 The Hunchback of Notre Dame, also starring Lon Chaney as the titular deformed character) and the characters beside the Phantom are interesting and rather likeable. Nevertheless, it's a nearly two-hour long silent film - not to be mean, but it feels very long even for a good movie - and as I said, some flaws may be a bit obvious to the eye and spoil your enjoyment.

 

As far as fun facts go, there's a ton of stories. The aforementionned story that Mary Philbin didn't know what Lon Chaney would look like without his mask and the "no pictures of the unmasked Phantom in magazines or papers" story are some notable stuff, there's also this story by cameraman Charles Van Enger (source: IMDb)

Quote

Chaney had summoned Van Enger to his dressing room, but without telling him why. When he got there and was standing about a foot behind the actor, Chaney suddenly spun around in full Phantom makeup! "I almost wet my pants. I fell back over a stool and landed flat on my back!" Chaney laughed so hard and Van Enger, who by then was "mad as hell" yelled, "Are you NUTS?" Unable to clearly talk with his fake teeth in, he spit them out: "Never mind Charlie, you already told me what I wanted to know."

It was also believed a set piece from the movie was haunted by Lon Chaney's ghost as every attempt at tearing it down resulted in fatal accidents. Still, the stage used for the movie was ultimately taken down in 2014...

Edited October 4, 2019 by Secret Executioner
adding a video.

[Secret Executioner]

Back to Italy with Beyond the Darkness (original title: Buio Omega) (Italy, 1979)

A taxidermist named Frank loses his wife. Torn apart, he decides to dig up and stuff her dead body so that he can have her with him forever. Eventually, he meets other women he ends up murdering and getting rid of in gruesome ways with the help of his housekeeper Iris, who's responsible for his wife's death and has a strange relation with him.

 

Revisisted this Joe D'Amato (director of several Ator movies, as well as various sexploitation and cannibal films including Emanuelle and the last Cannibals, Absurd, Porno Holocaust and Anthropophagus) movie for the review, and I got the exact same feelings about it. First off, the main character (played by Kieran Canter, an actor who mainly appeared in adult films in he 1980s and about whom IMDb has very little information) is rather interesting but the performance is a bit too wooden for him to be remotely sympathetic at first. His growing insanity is more convincing and you gotta love his awkward look when he finds Iris has invited a bunch of people and is anouncing their engagement - something he's (very) obviously unaware of. Speaking of, Iris is an already more interesting character. Played by Franca Stoppi (an Italian actress who mainly appeared in exploitation movies directed by Bruno Mattei, including a movie about posessed nuns and two women in prison films), she is a very unsettling woman, looking strict and emotionless but she's secretly in love with Frank. I mention her being emotionless in the sense that she has pretty much no reaction to chopping dead bodies and cleaning up blood and organ pieces off the floor afterwards, but she shows more emotion in other scenes, such as a lot of enjoyment when she breastfeeds Frank (!) or when she anounces their engagement.

These two are the main characters, but police officers, new girlfriends and an unexpected twist character

Spoiler

- the girlfriend turns out to have a twin sister, and both are played by Cinzia Monreale, an actress also seen in Fulci's The Beyond a couple of years later before becoming more of a TV star with a lot of appearances in TV movies or series -

 also appear but there's not much to say about them.

 

Concerning the movie itself, it's really not for everybody. The abundance of very well made gore - notably when Frank stuffs his wife and when he and Iris chop off a corpse before throwing it into a bathtub full of acid - is impressive in how well made it is but is also disturbing as you may find yourself wondering if real dead bodies were used for some scenes. The plot could be interesting, but suddenly takes a turn for the bizarre, with some weird ideas and stuff really coming out of nowhere in the last third or so. The movie has a strange, abrupt ending that can be interesting in that it raises questions and feel like a continuation of the bizarre, incomprehensible turn the plot has taken and thus you can be left going "Wait, what ?". 

One element that is good throughout (beside Iris who's a memorable character) is the soundtrack. Some keyboard heavy material by the legendary Italian band Goblin that at times feels like they're using a slowed or fasted version of another theme, but the music is very enjoyable and is used very well, with the themes being appropriate for the scenes they're used in. Some of them - like "Quiet Drops", a sad piano piece - can be heard in other horror movies from the time, the aforementionned "Quite drops" being heard in Luigi Cozzi's Contamination (1980) and over the final credits of Bruno Mattei's Hell of the Living Dead.

 

My call ? I hesitate to recommend this really.

 

No fun fact for today, so let's end this with the aforementionned piece of music by Goblin.

 

[Secret Executioner]

Poltergeist (USA, 1982)

A family see their lives shaken up by random bizarre occurences. Things keep getting spookier and spookier, with the youngest talking to spirits manifesting themselves through the family's TV set before being swallowed in her closet and becoming one of them. The parents hire mediums to get her back, while investigation reveals the backstory of the place their home was built...

 

Penned by Steven Spielberg and directed by Tobe Hooper (Texas Chainsaw Massacre), this movie is a fine example of the haunted house subgenre. With interesting and likeable characters - the family are nice and intelligent people -, a spooky atmosphere - thanks to a great use of sound effects, shadows and a lot of reaction shots shown before what is being reacted to - and some very intense visuals (the guy ripping his face off in the bathroom is very impressive), the movie avoids a lot of common horror issues. It also contains a lot of suspense and genuine scares, such as the creepy clown puppet coming to life to attack the boy, something you know is bound to happen due to how much focus it is given, but you can't tell when. The twist concerning the origin of the bizarre events is also an interesting idea that raises questions about the respect of the dead's memory and how far some immoral - if not amoral - people will go for money.

Having come out in the midst of the Amityville movie craze, I think it's actually much superior to the rather boring Amityville films of the time (Amityville II: The Possession from 1982 and Amityville 3-D [1] from 1983 - two films I may or may not cover later this month depending on my mood). IMO the best haunted house movie, but I have seen relatively few of them so I may have missed some great titles. I do have the 1986 sequel Poltergeist II: The other Side on DVD as well - another potential watch/review for this month -, but I don't think I'll watch the 2015 remake soon. The little I have seen of it wasn't very appealing to me. 

 

My call ? Definitely a must watch, but being a well-jnown title, I doubt many still have to see it. 

 

Footnote:

[1] Much like Jaws with Jaws 3-D and Friday the 13th with Friday the 13th: Part III, Amityville was another horror franchise to go with the 3-D fad of the early/mid-1980s. And just like the aforementionned franchises, the third episode was the 3-D one.

[Drunken Monk]

Over the weekend I watched the painfully dull The Furies. It's an Australian slasher movie that's high on gore and low on entertainment value. Bland plot, paper thin characters...a bad film all in all. Shame really as, on some horror sites, it was being touted as a true gore-hound's wet dream. Even the splatter couldn't save this one.

I also watched Crawl. The concept may be silly (alligators are roaming a flooded town during a hurricane) but, good god, it's a lot of fun! Really, really enjoyed this one. It's both tense and goofy but in a very good way. There's not a lot of gore but what gore there is is great. A very fun time.

[AlbertV]

I saw Cursed Friday night. On Saturday, I watched An American Werewolf in Paris, Transylvania 6-5000 (comedy horror film with Jeff Goldblum) and Ghoulies II. Yesterday, watched Chopping Mall and Candyman. A few weeks ago but the embargo ended today, I watched the upcoming sequel Along Came the Devil 2. Loved the original, like a 21-st century Exorcist, but this sequel was actually a bit better. I even interviewed the filmmaking team of Jason and Heather DeVan for the film's release.

 

[Secret Executioner]

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (USA, 1932)

Noted Dr. Henry Jekyll (Fredric March) has a theory that men are not one self, but two selves - one good and one evil - struggling for control, and he claims the two could be separated thanks to the use of certain chemicals. His theories are deemed ridiculous by fellow scientists, but he maintains them and pushes his experiments further when he grows frustrated with the limitations and rules of good conduct his position faces him with. But while he initially finds thrill in his newfound freedom, things soon go awry as his alter ego grows more and more notorious for his violence and he loses control over his transformation.

 

Another movie I saw fairly in my horror cinema interest, and another movie I find very good and enjoyable. Fredric March (revealed as Jekyll and later as Hyde through first-person shots in a mirror) delivers a great performance as the frustrated and tortured Jekyll and as the maniacal and deranged Hyde. Jekyll remains really tragic and you can't help but feel bad for him when things have gone totally off the rails, but I feel the overacting when it comes to Hyde makes the character come across as kind of goofy, his constant shaking and grimacing feeling like he's trying almost too hard to look threaening. But the scenes where he is just talking and being quieter still show what a mean one he is and the scenes involving a prostitute named Ivy (Miriam Hopkins in a very strong and moving performance as she greatly conveys the character's turmoil) remain very strong and you still feel uncomfortable watching them - you still believe her when she says whip lashes aren't the worst things he has done to her (off-screen obviously). I like the werewolf-like look they gave him, he not only acts like an animal or some demon, but he also has the looks to match - pointy, bucked teeth, deformed head with hair looking like an animal's, I think his ears also change shape, they become more like a wolf's (or some creature like an elf's) ears. The transformation scenes are well-rendered, especially the final two when he is cornered in the lab - these are actually the most elaborate of them, otherwise it's mainly him grimacing and acting weird, the camera pans off, showcases his hands growing deformed and back to the face that is now Hyde's (we only see Hyde turn back to Jekyll in the very last transformation, the others occur offscreen for the most part).

The rest of the characters feel rather one-dimensional with Lanyon being essentially the opposite of Jekyll (as in very conventional and conservative in his practice - on the bad side, he seems not to care much for the poor when Jekyll is shown going to see them and helping), General Carew being essentially here to point out how unorthodox and how indecent Jekyll acts compared to his standards and his daughter Muriel is here to be the love interest, some very sappy stuff even though she ends up standing up to her father, so there's some character growth.

 

On a sidenote, I found the film had some risqué visuals for the time. There's notably the way the prostitute acts when she first encounters Dr. Jekyll as she removes her garters in a very suggestive way then (after a cut) she lets one of her bare legs out of the bed, the rest of her (presumably naked) body remaining under the sheets as she asks Jekyll to come bac soon. This can eventually be seen as a less stuck up world, the one that would appeal to Hyde and essentially encourage Jekyll to pursue his experiments, as it goes completely against the very strict and conservative order of things the other characters we've seen so far seem to abide to.

 

My call ? Clearly worth a look, the story is very grabbing, the main character(s) is (are) very engaging and memorable, Fredric March delivers a killer performance and the movie has a good pacing, though some scenes between Jekyll and Muriel are really overkill - the romance being so hammered in could add to the tragedy if Muriel didn't seem so forgotten during the Hyde/Ivy affair. The package of the copy I have describes this as expressionistic, which I guess could be true based on the overacting and heavy physical alterations Hyde gets.

 

Fun fact: the copy I have comes on a 2-sided disc with the 1941 version starring Spencer Tracy and Ingrid Bergman (one that I'm not so fond of) and the bonus features include a Bugs Bunny cartoon. I just wanted to point out that fact because I always found it both weird - what do Looney Tunes cartoons have to do with classic movies like this ?! - and really cool - I don't care, I love Looney Tunes cartoons.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Secret Executioner
Posted the review before I had finished writing it.

[Secret Executioner]

Didn't watch any horror film today, but I had this review written in advance. So we'll be looking at a Roger Corman movie a little while ago with The Wasp Woman (USA, 1959)

The head of a declining cosmetics company hires a scientist who has invented a rejuvenating serum from a wasp secretion, his work being to take place under high secrecy with her serving as a test subject should he improve his product. He manages to create even more potent serums, but the latest, most potent of them turns out to have very ugly side-effects. Meanwhile, employees are concerned with their boss' blind trust in the scientist and the secrecy surrounding his work, so they begin investigating...

 

As a Roger Corman movie, it's of course a fairly short and cheap movie. Nevertheless, it's still enjoyable and quite suspensful towards the end. The characters are likeable, the story holds up well in spite of some forced elements to add to the tension - the scientist notably disappears and gets in an accident causing him to lose his memory just after he found out about the side-effects - and the cinematography has a certain charm, the black and white giving it a certain edge while buzzing sounds create tensions and various props have roles (like a guy who's disappeared is said to have to be in the office since he left his smoking pipe there).

As the title and summary I gave above suggest, there's of course a monster. But while the first victim (a cat) of the side-effects is left in shadows and has tension built around it, the titular "wasp woman" tends to be shown in too much light, which showcases the horrendousness of the monster (a woman in black with an insect head and "hands") but also some cheapness like in struggles when her sweaters sleeves get pulled up a bit and you clearly see she's wearing gloves as too much of her arms is revealed. The head however is rather impressive, though may look a bit too fake at times like when there's too much light on it or if shown too long under the same angle.

She also doesn't get a lot of screen time till the last few minutes, as the movie focuses heavily on the side-characters' investigation, which isn't too bad as they are enjoyable, have good dynamics and you gotta wonder how they'll find out and expose the guy for being a fraud - as they believe he is a con trying to deceive her - or try to reason their boss. And when the results are here - namely the boss is looking younger and younger -, other matters such as what happened to other characters like the missing scientist keep them busy and we get more of them. The boss lady is initially portrayed as a tough and kind of unpleasant person, but she becomes more and more sympathetic/tragic as her addiction to the serum and her will to use it in spite of the risks grow stronger and stronger and she ignores the warnings and begin using the  more experimental batch behind the scientist's back. As a monster, she essentially randomly attacks and kills people - not even that many as she gets little screen time in this condition - so no real development, just a fairly bland kind of thing. 

 

My call: nowhere near a masterpiece, but still a very enjoyable little movie. You probably know what to expect with a name like Roger Corman attached, and if you're into this kind of stuff, you should have a good 70-80 minutes.

 

Fun trivia: it seems the version I have is actually an extended cut that would be from the mid-1960s. The telltale sign between the two is that during the search for the missing scientist there's an extended driving sequence where you can clearly see cars that have been identified as 1964 models (according to IMDb).
 

Edited October 8, 2019 by Secret Executioner

[Secret Executioner]

The She-Creature (USA, 1956)

An hypnotist named Carlo Lombardi manages to get his assistant to relive some of her past lives. While a rich businessman sees an amazing trick, the murders caused by the prehistoric creature Lombardi summonned are very real.

 

Another cheap monster movie, this time an attempt to cash in on the then popular belief in reincarnation and past lives - much like films such as Roger Corman's The Undead. Here, an hypnotist makes an English woman from the sixteenth century speaks through her mouth and he can get her out of her body to commit murders as a monstrosity from prehistoric times. The hypnotist is rather charismatic and has an unsettling appearance, always looking like he's up to something - his hypnotic powers seem to work on other people and animals, as seen when he gets a dog to attack the main character. The assistant is a decent character, the attempts at resisting him and her hatred being her main traits. She also seems to be in love with the hero of the movie, a very dull scientist who rebuked Lombardi's theories and is opposed to his use of hypnosis as some kind of entertainment or to such a level that the hypnotized is nighly comatose. Said hero has a rich girlfriend who has to deal with an alcoholic ex and whose father wants to produce Lombardi's act, believing it to be a very elaborate trick to the point he suggests to tone down the murder predictions to avoid risking a fail. The guy is okay, a rich businessman who wants to cash in on the guy while not getting it at all. There are ahdnful of other characters, including a goofy foreign servant and some people who serve as victims to the creature. An interesting character is the cop who has an intuition Lombardi is linked to the murders but can't pinpoint how. He is one of the few not falling for his charisma and seems like one of the few remotely intelligent people here.

The creature is a weird monster looking like a cheap cousin to the Creature from Black Laggoon, though still a creative design. She (I assume from the title the monster's a female) usually materializes out of the sea and leave prints in spite of being kind of ghost. She does become very real when she has to destroy stuff and murder thanks to superhuman strength and claws. The results are implied to be a big mess and horribly mutilated bodies. She's also bulletproof, which doesn't stop people from trying to shoot her.

 

My call ? Some suspense, a decent monster and a good villain. But otherwise, it's mainly a slow and boring piece.

[Drunken Monk]

Yesterday I watched what I consider to be one of the most misunderstood films of recent times, The Nun. Everyone was bitter about this being a poor follow-up to The Conjuring and Annabelle movies and I enjoyed every moment of it.
In my eyes, this is not meant to be in the tone of The Conjuring. It feels like a real throwback to the horrors of the early 90's. Movies like Tales from the Crypt: Demon Knight. The Nun is a spooky medieval castle film. It plays like an adult episode of Scooby Doo more than anything else. I really dug the tone of of the whole thing and was super surprised at the negativity flung at it.
It might not be the spookiest film but it features memorable imagery and has a really nice feel to it. I actually wish they made more schlocky films like this these days. It was a nice switch up from found-footage and overly serious horror.

[Secret Executioner]

Was interested in Crawl but didn't check it out in the end. @Drunken Monk 's review of The Nun made me curious about it.

 

Today's review: The Exorcist II: The Heretic (USA, 1977)

4 years after the original movie, Regan (Linda Blair) is now followed by a psychiatrist who is trying to understand what's wrong with her. To do so, she comes up with a machine that can synchronize people's minds and allow someone to see others' dreams. Meanwhile, a priest named Lamont (Richard Burton) is sent on a mission to find out what really caused the death of Father Merrin in the first film. Eventually, they find the root of the evil in Regan - and potential help to defeat it - lies in Africa, where Merrin had exorcised a spirit named Pazuzu out of a boy named Kokumo who's apparently still alive (James Earl Jones).

 

This highly controversial sequel is often listed among the worst ever - something I absolutely don't agree with. Actually, I'd go as far as to say I like this film better than the original but I always felt it was a vastly overrated movie that had a staying power and was considered a classic because of its shock value and people fainting or getting sick, if not committing suicide because of it.

Directed by John Boorman (whose latest movie at the time was the bizarre science-fiction Sean Connery vehicle Zardoz), the movie offers some very strange visuals, notably concerning the institution Regan's in or the appartment she and Sharon live in - her mom's absent of the movie for some reason. Lots of glass and mirror, light effects... While that worked out in the strange futuristic world of Zardoz and it's visually beautiful - you also NEVER see crew members' or equipment's reflections -, it makes little sense by real-life standards. But being a movie about a girl possessed by a locust demon from Africa, I guess there's more unrealistic stuff going on (lol). The visuals for the scenes in Africa are gorgeous, though also unsettling. Wherever the priests pass or have passed is always very tight or crowded, lots of people surrounding them and the tension is increased by the very claustrophobic feeling of those scenes. The scenes where the spirit makes the priest travel to Kokumo during a hypnosis sequence have bizarre cinematography too, with lots of motion, something that could almost rival 2001's post-Jupiter sequence if bizarre colors were added to it. 

There are several sequences involving locusts that are also very odd, like when you get close-ups of one flying to suggest Pazuzu moving about. The scene between Lamont and Kokumo have a lot of shots of locusts who may make people uncomfortable, though I personally liked the shots and the little creatures are actually rather cute IMO (even though some seem to be going cannibal and eating fellow locusts). That said, I wouldn't want to have been there when the scenes involving people fighting or being caught in swarms of locusts were made. Those are geniunely unsettling and I doubt Richard Burton or Linda Blair enjoyed filming them - especially when you see Regan fighting a swarm of locusts that all fall to the floor, leaving here surrounded by dozens of insects.

Another strange element is how some scenes (like Lamont finding Kokumo) have a sudden change at the end, making you wonder whether what you've just seen actually happened or if it was some kind of dream/hallucination. I know this kind of things can be seen as one of the genre trademarks, but it comes across as rather jaring here. 

The characters are a bit of a mixed bag, with Lamont and the doctor having interesting moments, but some scenes feel like filler. Regan comes across as an enjoyable and smart teenage girl, she does have weird moments we may forgive and there is some development regarding a potential to become a fighter for the forces of good as she seems to be gifted, just like Kokumo is said to have been in his youth. The fact Linda Blair refused to have the complex possession make-up applied doesn't hinder the movie, as there's barely if any scene alluding to a possessed Regan - mainly nods to the original, and an evil Regan (a slightly deformed Regan with green eyes and a bizarre smile and voice) appearing in the end and trying to make Lamont turn to the dark side. Kokumo's story is interesting, he receives a strong build-up that IMO pays off. On a sidenote, it's odd seeing James Earl Jones talking about fighting evil and wearing a locust costum here before realizing this movie came out the same year as Star Wars...

 

My call ? Worth checking if you like bizarre movies. Definitely a whole different thing than the original, very surreal in its cinematography and not so shock and gore oriented. The story feels all over the place and it's a bit hard to follow where the movie's going, but it got me intrigued and kept me interested. Also, there's a very atmospheric soundtrack by none other than legendary Italian composer Ennio Morricone.

 

Fun Fact (I guess ?): IMDb mentions a 110 minutes "edited" version that has a recap, a lot of stock footage and Burton's character dying and the original 117 minutes cut, as well as potentially a European cut. My copy (a French DVD) is 112 minutes long and doesn't have anything from the edited version so I guess the purported European cut does exist.

Also, a piece of music from this film was used in Quentin Tarantino's The Hateful Eight (2015).

 

[Drunken Monk]

Today’s watch was Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers. This film is a true conundrum. It barely features Michael Myers and when it does, his mask looks like it’s from the dollar store. It’s low on tension, character, scares and gore.

I just don’t know what they were going for here. It’s a snooze fest through and through. And Donald Pleasance agreed to it!

Lastly, don’t even get me started on that ending. Awful, awful, awful.

[Secret Executioner]

@Drunken Monk It's probably not completely obscure, but they basically tried to redo the first movie and bring back Michael Myers as the third movie didn't do great at the box-office, resulting in John Carpenter pulling out of the series as he had intended it to be an anthology series and not yet another slasher franchise - ironically H4 ended performing about the same as Season of the Witch at the box-office.

I think I've already mentionned it, but I feel like the series would have been much more interesting had they kept going down the anthology path. The first two movies make for a very well contained story and the closure is satisfying, while the way they bring back Myers in H4 and the circumstances leading to his 1988 killing spree are ridiculously improbable. Add the fact that 4 is a poor attempt at recreating the original, and you see how pointless the series became. The first three movies range from good (I'm not too fond of the first but I have to admit it has atmoshphere and a lot of tension) to very interesting. The third movie I feel has an interesting story, while two is IMO better than the first mainly because I feel it has a better pace - I always felt the first was a bit too slow at times - and the kills are more creative, some made me uncomfortable. But after that, the series clearly went downhill. H5 has rather annoying characters, and Resurrection is as good as a movie involving a real tv show and starring popular singers and models from the time can get. Busta Rhymes using his martial arts to fight Michael Myers is however a memorable moment, but more for the unintended hilarity.

I feel I should revisit H20 as I don't remember much of it, and I don't have Halloween 6 - somehow it seems unavailable in France - but from what I recall hearing about it, it's a giant mess.

 

Back to Return of Michael Myers, I feel like the ending was meant to mirror the original's opening

Spoiler

(even though the similarities are a bit overkill with Michael's niece having a similar clown costume and looking an awful lot like Mike after he murdered his sister)

 and it had potential, eventually introducing a possible new killer like Friday the 13th Part V: A new Beginning did with Tommy Jarvis. But it never paid off as Hallowen 5 (much like Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason lives) throws everything out of the window and brings back the usual suspect as the killer. 

 

Speaking of, I'll probably watch a Friday the 13th film today as it's Friday and the 13th is right around the corner. 

[Secret Executioner]

Friday the 13th (USA, 1980)

1958. A boy drowns after going for a swim in the lake while the counselors were partying. They are then brutally murdered.

Present day (read 1979 or 1980), on June 13th, which happens to be a Friday according to the movie. Young people come over to reopen the camp, doing so in spite of warnings from locals that the place is cursed and they are doomed. But they soon fall victims to a mysterous assailant.

 

The original 1980 movie that started one of the biggest slasher franchises. And quite honestly, it's one of the best movies of the genre (or subgenre ?). While I do prefer Part III when it comes to the series, this one is a close second. The characters are likeable, sympthetic and don't come across as obnoxious as slasher victims would get later in the decade or in the 90s and 2000s where the fodder would be made up of utterly unlikeable jackasses. Hell, even the kiler actually receives some development and isn't a mere psycho butchering people (spoiler: it's NOT Jason here). Other slashers tried a similar approach with a killer that would have a motivation behind his or her murders, but this movie's killer is one of the best done as you kinda sympathize for her and the way she operates and who she targets make more sense than the killers in movies like Valentine or the I know what you did last Summer franchise who murder a lot of random people but not the ones they are supposed to be after...

As a horror movie the film also works really well. You get a lot of build up concerning Camp Crystal Lake, and the fact a lot happens at night and eventually during a storm adds to the tension - actually it seems like there's a storm and a lot happening at night in pretty much every one of those movies. There are a few scares and moments that startle the viewer very efficiently too, like a guy getting stabbed in the gut being accompanied with a startling cue to make the moment catch you even more intensly. The gore is also well done and you get some gruesome deaths and mutilated bodies on screen - something later entries in the series would lack. I find the ending interesting too, as you can't really tell whether the last girl getting attacked on the boat in the middle of the lake really happened (that's quite an efficient scare though), yet the final shot seems to imply there IS something suspicious with the lake.

[Secret Executioner]

The Omen (USA, 1976)

US Ambassador to the UK Robert Thorn (Gregory Peck) and his wife (Lee Remerick) are a happy couple who just had a son. However, the child dies shortly after birth and Robert decides to follow a priest's suggestion to adopt another child who has just been born but whose mother died while giving birth. 

Years later, the couple lives happily with the little boy named Damian but strange events and gruesome deaths occur around the boy. Reluctant to believe it at first, Mr. Thorn will have to realize his son isn't just any boy but the Antichrist himself.

 

A couple of years after The Exorcst and a few before the likes of Kubrick's The Shining and Tobe Hoopers Poltergeist (and let's not forget Rosemary's Baby, Carrie...), we got another child-centric horror classic with this  effort by Richard Donner (Superman, the Lethal Weapon quadrilogy). I mentionned not being that impressed with the original Exorcist and enjoying Poltergeist in previous reviews - technically I discussed The Exorcist in a review of its sequel The Exorcist II: The Heretic -, and my feelings towards this one are yet different. Exorcist I find OTT, Poltergeist I find an enjoyable movie with efficient scares and great visuals, The Omen I think is a very eerie and tension-filled kind of supernatural thriller. Sure it definitely has horror elements, such as some gruesome deaths (the nanny who hangs herself, a priest getting impaled) and a great atmosphere thanks to the cinematography - it's beautiful, disturbing and frightening to look at all at once - and notably Jerry Goldsmith's amazingly haunting soundtrack, but I find the main plot is more of an investigation, as Mr. Thorn slowly finds more and more evidence of his son's abnormal nature - first it's bizarre coincdences with a photographer finding bizarre signs foreshadowing deaths on photographs he took at a birthday party, then he goes on to try and find who Damian's mother was (or rather what)...

I found this main plot interesting, and the pacing was right, especially with the mother slowly coming to believe her husband as bizarre, violent incidents happen to her while he's away - the investigation process goes slowly as the man slowly starts believing the bizarre stuff happening is no coincidence and the unveiling of the evidence of Damian's real nature doesn't feel rushed or like it's coming out of nowhere.

Peck's acting is very solid, as is the boy playing Damian's - that adorable child somehow looks very creepy and fits perfectly as a threatening character under a sweet, innocent appearance. The new nurse the couple hire after the first one dies is of a similar caliber, looking like a sweet and very professional woman before revealing her true colors. 

 

My call ? A classic that lives well up to its reputation, a great movie that a lot of people - be they horror enthusiasts or simply movie lovers - should enjoy. I haven't seen of its (at least) 2 sequels nor the 2006 remake, but the sequels sound interesting as - from what I recall reading - Damian becomes aware of his actual destiny in the second film and tries to become President of the USA while fighting a divine adversary in part 3.

 

Fun fact: this film's making was surrounded by bizarre incidents that led to a belief it was cursed - although it would be the highest-paid performance by Peck and Richard Donner would become a successful and highly regarded director.

[Secret Executioner]

The New York Ripper (original title: Lo Squartatore di New York) (Italy, 1982)

A wave of gruesome women murders is hitting New York City. The detective in charge is then contacted by a man sounding like a duck who claims he is the murderer. He later meets and starts teaming up with a psychiatrist.

 

Another Lucio Fulci film for today, one that exists in several cuts with various edits depending on countries and releases, but my copy - French DVD from Neo Publishing - is the 93 min uncut version. This one is (much like City of the Living Dead) a brutal and gore picture, but also includes a lot of sleazy moments - including some BDSM, a woman masturbating in a porn theater and taping the sound of er orgasm for her husband... - and feels much more disturbing due to the realism and the violence of some of the scenes.The lingering shots on mutilated bodies/people being mutilated, the heavy gore and how gratuitious all the violence feels add to how uncomfortable the movie makes you. 

The plot is also bizarre, but is overall a mystery though the ending and the reveal of the killer's identity after a few red-herrings are a bit head-scratching, though maybe I didn't pay enough attention to plot details because I got distracted (or rather disturbed) by the violence on display. Cause this movie is violent to a point it feels quite disturbing. Repeated stabbing, slashing, sadistic violence... The killer pushes it very far and the murders get hard to look at at points. Add in the sleaze with the woman who tapes her orgasms getting involved with guys and letting things escalate till she nearly gets raped - rape scenes being one of the few things I can't stand in movies -, and I can honestly say that I almost regret wanting to watch this.

 

My call ? A film that one may want to watch out of curiosity - as I did - because it's (considered) a Fulci classic, but it's really not for everybody. I would say this one and Joe D'Amato's Beyond the Darkness give me similar feelings, but the Joe D'Amato movie at least had some interesting characters - especially Iris the housekeeper - and a cool soundtrack while I didn't find much interest in the characters in NYR and the soundtrack wasn't that memorable. So yeah, go with BtD instead.

Edited October 13, 2019 by Secret Executioner

[Drunken Monk]

The Hole in the Ground - Excellent slow burn horror. It's refreshing to come across a modern horror that doesn't rely on jump scares. This film is all about tension and mystery. Great stuff. The lead actress, Seána Kerslake, is fantastic too.
I can't help but feel there are some serious underlying themes in this film but I think I need to re-watch the film to fully explore them. Still, even without a deep look, it's one of the better horror films I've seen as of late.

Veronica - Dull as dish water Spanish horror film. It lacks scares and, to be honest, it lacks plot. The whole thing drags along at a snails pace and then gifts the audience a lazy, uninspired ending. Considering how often this film has been recommended to me, I'm shocked at how bad it was.

[Drunken Monk]

The Taking of Deborah Logan - A slightly above average found-footage movie with an interest Alzheimer’s angle. There’s not much as far as plot is concerned but there are some genuine scares and a tight tension throughout. We’ve all seen a gif of that ending and while that particular moment is great, the ending fails to tie things up properly.

A solid effort and it works as a one-time watch. Alas, replay value is zilch with this one.

[AlbertV]

I saw the reboot of Child's Play over the weekend and I think its intention is not to live up to the original, because that's never going to happen. However, I think they made a statement about what could go wrong when there are risks with technology. For what it was, it was not that bad actually. There are wonderful references to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, especially a specific scene involving one victim getting their face skinned?! The detective here was a 180 compared to Chris Sarandon as Brian Tyree Henry plays Det. Norris as a more likable fellow and Aubrey Plaza a bit of her comic touch to the role of Karen Barclay. Gabriel Bateman surprised me as he was a good teenage Andy while Mark Hamill is definitely a saving grace voicing the new Chucky.

Edited October 15, 2019 by AlbertV