First off, I apologize for not posting more movie reviews. The wife and I hosted a Halloween party last night and yours truly was busy carving pumpkins, cleaning, making food and putting on his make up and costume. So now I have time to do a movie review.
The sequel to 2009's blockbuster horror film is pretty much the same thing as you saw win the first film. If you liked the first one, you'll enjoy this. If you hated the first film, don't expect to enjoy this one. I fall in the later. I didn't care for this at all.
The film is just filled with cheap scares. Loud noises abruptly, cupboards opening, lights turning off, dog barking, it's the same thing as the first film. This time the sister of the woman in the first film is being haunted by a ghost or demon. Her husband is a non-believer and the filmmakers play him off like an asshole. Every male in this movie is a tool and for me, it's borderline offensive. The daughter is just like her step-Mom and believes the family is in trouble and the baby of the family seems to know more what is going on than everyone else. Aside from the family now having a daughter, baby and dog, this is exactly the same movie. Sure, the filmmakers try to add a little bit of a back-story this time around but the film focuses more on the cheap scares.
I will say the acting is much better this time around but even so, the characters say some pretty awful dialogue. At times I couldn't help but laugh and I am sorry, when you have the father running down the basement stairs looking for his son that the demons might have grabbed, hearing the baby babble and laugh just made me laugh. It wasn't scary at all. However, the film is told from a female perspective so I think women may find this more frightening than men. Consider me a non-believer.
Man of a Thousand Faces
The great Lon Chaney from London After Midnight
Oct 31, 2010
Oct 30, 2010
October 29th - SAW 3D (2010)
Ahhh, my old friend Jigsaw is back. Bad acting, hilarious dialogue, and tons of gore is also back. But what is new in this entry are outstanding 3-D effects and an unsatisfying ending to what is said to be the last Saw film.
Like all the other Saw films, the movie opens up with an elaborate trap and someone gets wasted in a gruesome way. This scene provided some un-intentional laughs as everyone is screaming super loud and swearing non stop and the gore literally explodes into your face. A very promising opening and alot of fun.
Also like the previous Saw films, the movie bounces back and forth between Det. Hoffman's quest to kill Jigsaw's wife who blackmailed him at the end of Saw VI to a new story involving a man who claims to be an escaped victim of Jigsaw's and writes a book about the ordeal. However the man is a liar and Jigsaw doesn't like liars, forcing the man into a long series of mazes with his loved ones in the various traps. As much as the death scenes are interesting and hilariously over the top, I care more about the subplot with Hoffman since that is the meat of the series. Can Hoffman escape the police? This story isn't handled as carefully as in the other films and it doesn't help that the new police officer on the case is this annoying actor whose atrocious in the role.
The film's story just doesn't do it for me this time around and I would have loved to have just stuck with the original story and not deal so much with traps and high body count with new characters. But I guess that wouldn't be a true Saw film now, would it? The film is one of the weakest entries in the series due to the acting and story but it's saving grace is the uber-graphic effects involving keys inside a stomach that must come out, a buzz saw death, a burning, multiple stabbings, etc. And the 3-D effects are some of the best I have seen recently. We even get some 80's type effects like a person's face being sewn, with the needle reaching out into our faces.
And the series is finally over and it just wasn't that satisfying to me. I kept thinking how many characters we followed in this series and that's how they ended up? I guess I shouldn't be too hard on the film, it is the 7th entry and the films have been fresh for the most part. But is the game really over?
Like all the other Saw films, the movie opens up with an elaborate trap and someone gets wasted in a gruesome way. This scene provided some un-intentional laughs as everyone is screaming super loud and swearing non stop and the gore literally explodes into your face. A very promising opening and alot of fun.
Also like the previous Saw films, the movie bounces back and forth between Det. Hoffman's quest to kill Jigsaw's wife who blackmailed him at the end of Saw VI to a new story involving a man who claims to be an escaped victim of Jigsaw's and writes a book about the ordeal. However the man is a liar and Jigsaw doesn't like liars, forcing the man into a long series of mazes with his loved ones in the various traps. As much as the death scenes are interesting and hilariously over the top, I care more about the subplot with Hoffman since that is the meat of the series. Can Hoffman escape the police? This story isn't handled as carefully as in the other films and it doesn't help that the new police officer on the case is this annoying actor whose atrocious in the role.
The film's story just doesn't do it for me this time around and I would have loved to have just stuck with the original story and not deal so much with traps and high body count with new characters. But I guess that wouldn't be a true Saw film now, would it? The film is one of the weakest entries in the series due to the acting and story but it's saving grace is the uber-graphic effects involving keys inside a stomach that must come out, a buzz saw death, a burning, multiple stabbings, etc. And the 3-D effects are some of the best I have seen recently. We even get some 80's type effects like a person's face being sewn, with the needle reaching out into our faces.
And the series is finally over and it just wasn't that satisfying to me. I kept thinking how many characters we followed in this series and that's how they ended up? I guess I shouldn't be too hard on the film, it is the 7th entry and the films have been fresh for the most part. But is the game really over?
Oct 27, 2010
October 27th - THE WOLFMAN (2010)
Maybe Hollywood London
When actor Laurence Talbot's (a mis-cast Benicio Del Toro) brother is missing and his fiancé (Emily Blunt, sleep walking through her role) asks for his help, Talbot goes back to his old home where his estranged father (Anthony Hopkins) still lives. While there he is attacked by a werewolf and is bitten. Now Talbot is cursed with the mark of the werewolf. The problem with the film is that there are two separate stories going on at the same time, one with Talbot and the other with his father and the "twist" that is given just doesn't work at all. There is no drama built around these characters whatsoever. I couldn't care what happened to any of them nor did I buy the forced romance between Talbot and his brother's fiancé. It's not like the characters are all unsympathetic, it's just that the script doesn't allow these characters to really stand out.
Another huge issue I had was the casting of Del Toro. I think he is a fine actor and very good in alot of roles but he just doesn't have the heart-breaking sympathy that Chaney pulled off in the original film. Del Toro just looks tired and confused in this remake. What this movie should have done was look at something like the TV series The Incredible Hulk. That show had heart, it had drama, characters that you liked and felt sorry for and cared about. There are alot of similarities between The Wolfman and The Hulk already. The Wolfman's romantic subplot is very stale on top of it, bogging the film down more than anything.
The make up is very good but shown very little. The special effects are almost all CGI and they look about as realistic as if you were playing a video game. One scene near the end has a character on fire and his head is chopped off and rolls into the camera. It looks so lousy, I laughed out loud.
But the film isn't awful. I did appreciate the setting and costumes. The film is filled with great atmosphere as well, making it lovely to look at.Hopkins
Although I have seen much worse,Hollywood
* IF YOU ENJOY THESE REVIEWS, CHECK OUT THE SITE
When actor Laurence Talbot's (a mis-cast Benicio Del Toro) brother is missing and his fiancé (Emily Blunt, sleep walking through her role) asks for his help, Talbot goes back to his old home where his estranged father (Anthony Hopkins) still lives. While there he is attacked by a werewolf and is bitten. Now Talbot is cursed with the mark of the werewolf. The problem with the film is that there are two separate stories going on at the same time, one with Talbot and the other with his father and the "twist" that is given just doesn't work at all. There is no drama built around these characters whatsoever. I couldn't care what happened to any of them nor did I buy the forced romance between Talbot and his brother's fiancé. It's not like the characters are all unsympathetic, it's just that the script doesn't allow these characters to really stand out.
Another huge issue I had was the casting of Del Toro. I think he is a fine actor and very good in alot of roles but he just doesn't have the heart-breaking sympathy that Chaney pulled off in the original film. Del Toro just looks tired and confused in this remake. What this movie should have done was look at something like the TV series The Incredible Hulk. That show had heart, it had drama, characters that you liked and felt sorry for and cared about. There are alot of similarities between The Wolfman and The Hulk already. The Wolfman's romantic subplot is very stale on top of it, bogging the film down more than anything.
The make up is very good but shown very little. The special effects are almost all CGI and they look about as realistic as if you were playing a video game. One scene near the end has a character on fire and his head is chopped off and rolls into the camera. It looks so lousy, I laughed out loud.
But the film isn't awful. I did appreciate the setting and costumes. The film is filled with great atmosphere as well, making it lovely to look at.
Although I have seen much worse,
* IF YOU ENJOY THESE REVIEWS, CHECK OUT THE SITE
http://www.unratedmagazine.com/Movies/Halloween.cfm FOR MORE REVIEWS THAT I HAVE WRITTEN!
Oct 26, 2010
October 26th - WRONG TURN 2: DEAD END (2007)
Horror sequels that go direct to video/DVD usually make me laugh. Almost always they are sequels to little sleeper hits that were in theaters a few years previously. They usually star one or two of the same actors from the first film but never the main star (unless it is Sniper 2, poor Tom Berenger). The film is usually much cheaper and tries its best to be just like the first film. Wrong Turn 2: Dead End sort of falls in this category and almost succeeds as being a decent sequel at first.
I was one of the few people who enjoyed Wrong Turn. I thought it was a decent throwback to a 1970's horror film, much like The Hills Have Eyes and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Although the plot was thin and the characters were annoying, I had a good time with it. And so I got pulled into the trap of the direct to DVD sequel.
Wrong Turn 2 isn't a bad film. In fact the opening actually made me jump and even grossed me out a little. It starts off with a reality TV star driving along in the woods and accidentally hitting a person in the road. When she checks on the person, he suddenly attacks her and rips her lips clean off. She frantically tries to get back to her catr, teeth fully exposed. Then another person suddenly comes from nowhere and literally cuts her body in two, showing us her steaming intestines splatter on the ground. The scene was scary, startling and had some great make up effects. I was pulled in. And then the plot began and it started to lose me from there.
A bunch of actors and crew members from a reality TV show much like Survivor meet a new deformed, cannabistic family in the woods while they are filming their new show. The actors and crew members are all walking clichés and downright annoying (save for Henry Rollins as the T.V. host) so I was rooting for the family right from the get go. The film does a good job of killing off the people who you least expect to die but the actors left alive are so boring and so one dimensional, it was downright boring to watch.
Also, as the film moved along I noticed the make up started to look lousy and CGI started to be used all too much and it looked really phony. I could feel fatigue hit me and I had to force myself to stay awake and finish this movie. Too bad too, the opening had so much promise.
I was one of the few people who enjoyed Wrong Turn. I thought it was a decent throwback to a 1970's horror film, much like The Hills Have Eyes and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Although the plot was thin and the characters were annoying, I had a good time with it. And so I got pulled into the trap of the direct to DVD sequel.
Wrong Turn 2 isn't a bad film. In fact the opening actually made me jump and even grossed me out a little. It starts off with a reality TV star driving along in the woods and accidentally hitting a person in the road. When she checks on the person, he suddenly attacks her and rips her lips clean off. She frantically tries to get back to her catr, teeth fully exposed. Then another person suddenly comes from nowhere and literally cuts her body in two, showing us her steaming intestines splatter on the ground. The scene was scary, startling and had some great make up effects. I was pulled in. And then the plot began and it started to lose me from there.
A bunch of actors and crew members from a reality TV show much like Survivor meet a new deformed, cannabistic family in the woods while they are filming their new show. The actors and crew members are all walking clichés and downright annoying (save for Henry Rollins as the T.V. host) so I was rooting for the family right from the get go. The film does a good job of killing off the people who you least expect to die but the actors left alive are so boring and so one dimensional, it was downright boring to watch.
Also, as the film moved along I noticed the make up started to look lousy and CGI started to be used all too much and it looked really phony. I could feel fatigue hit me and I had to force myself to stay awake and finish this movie. Too bad too, the opening had so much promise.
MISSED ANOTHER DAY
Sorry folks, missed another day. After work I had to get an estimate on a mirror that was broken off by a cop this past week (cop's fault, not mine) and I had to watch the NY Giants beat the Dallas Cowgirls in a pretty exciting and long game. By the time it was over it was 11:30 pm and Kleinstein gets up at 5:00 am so there ya have it.
Oct 24, 2010
October 24th - ZOMBIE STRIPPERS (2008)
With a title like Zombie Strippers, I knew I wasn't going to get the best zombie movie ever. But can I get a good film? No? How about an average film? Still no? How about sleazy fun? Can't have that either? How about this isn't the worst film I have ever seen but it is still lame? Ok good...I guess.
The military unleashes (on purpose) a chemical that can turn people into zombies for their own usage in wars. When a soldier who was bitten stumbles into a strip club and infects one of the strippers, her dancing/strip act suddenly becomes much better and brings in the customers. Soon, all the strippers are begging to be zombies and quickly follow in suit. But after awhile, they get hungry and decay starts to set in.
Being a fan of exploitation films, I like many of you, were sucked in based on the title. Also, genre actor Robert Englund was the star. So I crossed my fingers and hoped for something fun. I will say the premise is ok and if only the jokes weren't meant for 5 year olds or liberals (plenty of lazy George Bush jokes which are outdated and unoriginal), maybe this could have been tolerable. The films low budget shows and while the make up effects are pretty good, the actual special effects are entirely CGI and look like you are watching a video game. It doesn't help that the film drags at times and over stays it's welcome, running past the 90 minute mark.
The film doesn't skimp on the gore and when it wasn't CGI, it looked pretty good and nasty. Robert Englund provides the only talent and he's pretty funny as a germaphobe strip club owner. And there are plenty of silicone boobs in this for fans of the fake milkers. But that is the best I can say about this one.
Zombie Strippers isn't the fun and original film is should have been but it isn't a complete piece of shit as it could have been either.
The military unleashes (on purpose) a chemical that can turn people into zombies for their own usage in wars. When a soldier who was bitten stumbles into a strip club and infects one of the strippers, her dancing/strip act suddenly becomes much better and brings in the customers. Soon, all the strippers are begging to be zombies and quickly follow in suit. But after awhile, they get hungry and decay starts to set in.
Being a fan of exploitation films, I like many of you, were sucked in based on the title. Also, genre actor Robert Englund was the star. So I crossed my fingers and hoped for something fun. I will say the premise is ok and if only the jokes weren't meant for 5 year olds or liberals (plenty of lazy George Bush jokes which are outdated and unoriginal), maybe this could have been tolerable. The films low budget shows and while the make up effects are pretty good, the actual special effects are entirely CGI and look like you are watching a video game. It doesn't help that the film drags at times and over stays it's welcome, running past the 90 minute mark.
The film doesn't skimp on the gore and when it wasn't CGI, it looked pretty good and nasty. Robert Englund provides the only talent and he's pretty funny as a germaphobe strip club owner. And there are plenty of silicone boobs in this for fans of the fake milkers. But that is the best I can say about this one.
Zombie Strippers isn't the fun and original film is should have been but it isn't a complete piece of shit as it could have been either.
Oct 23, 2010
October 23rd - HALLOWEEN II (2009)
I actually saw Rob Zombie's Halloween II in theaters when it came out a year ago. This is the review of the unrated, 119 minute version with a completely different ending.
Not being a big fan of remakes, I had speculations about the Halloween remake but I was fond of Zombie's The House of 1,000 Corpses and it's sequel, The Devil's Rejects. Both films had some major flaws but had a certain amount of raw energy that I enjoy in my horror movies. I have always preferred disturbing horror to monster movies or haunted house movies (but I still love the hell out of those movies too). When Halloween came out, it was a great half movie. Loved the first half by giving some interesting back story on Michael Myers but the second half kind of falls flat into remake territory. Now, Zombie is able to sequelize (is that a word?) his own remake and make it all on his own. And, like all his films, it has its flaws but I still enjoyed it.
The movie starts as soon as the first film ends and Laurie Strode is a complete mess. The once virgin, girl next door is now a punk rocking, foul mouthed, schizo with a bad temper. She now lives with her friend Annie and her father, the sheriff of Haddenfield (played by Brad Dourif who gives the film its best performance. One sequence involving his daughter is gut wrenching and tear jerking. Performances this good are unfounded and are never written like this). Dr. Loomis has also changed and he is now a self-centered author capitalizing on Michael Myers victims with his books and press meetings. And Myers of course is not dead and he returns to find his sister and end it all.
The version I saw in theaters decided to edit out all the best parts in my opinion. There is some great, dramatic scenes with Laurie and Annie and how they are drifting apart as friends and are still tormented by what had happened to them. Laurie now sees a psychiatrist (Margot Kidder) who is trying hard to help her. In the theatrical version, Kidder has a cameo. In the unrated version, the scenes are longer and we now see Laurie has become a delusional liar and desperately needs prescription drugs to block the bad memories out. Why were these scenes taken out? Running at almost two hours, this is the "epic" slasher film. The dramatic scenes work very well and are so well acted and captivating, that whenever Myers showed up to kill off a few people, I was getting bored. I would love to see what Zombie could do with a thriller or a dark drama.
This is also one of the most graphic and depressing slasher films I have ever seen. Characters don't just get stabbed and die. They cough blood, they can't speak, they convulse, they cry, they crawl, they vomit, it's all very realistic and the make up effects are some of the most disgusting I have seen in a recent Hollywood movie. While some will say the violence is exploitive, I feel the violence works better for being realistic. By making the brutality of Myers slayings as real as they can be, it makes the dramatic scenes all the more better. It is also honest as death is not as quick as it is in the movies. Violence should almost always be portrayed realistically. Horror can be scary with the whole "boo" tactic, but to me, being disturbed or troubled is much more scary. I felt this alot during Halloween II.
Halloween II still has some major flaws. Logistically, how does Myers know where Laurie is going to be? How can he track her? Also, Zombie adds these really silly dream sequences throughout the film of a young Michael Myers and his dead mother with a white horse. These scenes literally make no sense and is laughably bad. The only reason these scenes are in the film is that Zombie has to put his wife Sherri Moon Zombie in every movie he makes. Since she died in the first film, he added these stupid sequences which almost ruin it. I am also not a fan of how they handled Dr. Sam Loomis's character. He is such a piece of shit now and when he tries to redeem himself, it's too little too late and doesn't work. Malcolm McDowell does he best in the role but it doesn't work for me. And Zombie's trademark of everyone talking dirty and swearing every other word continues and it is distracting.
Now the ending...the unrated version is different. Why did Zombie shoot two endings? Well, neither one of them I cared for but I think the unrated version plays a bit better with the outcome and Myers does finally speak but the theatrical version at least has Dr. Loomis try and redeem himself. Both endings are unsatisfying.
One last note: does anyone have the blu ray of this? The picture was awful with too much grain.
Halloween II is a very different kind of slasher film, utilizing alot of great aspects but allowing alot of bad ones as well. The film is very gory and each death scene is realistic. Even head snapping and strangulation is graphic thanks to the sound effects and performances. The unrated version is much better though and it does help to watch both films back to back as I did tonight.
Not being a big fan of remakes, I had speculations about the Halloween remake but I was fond of Zombie's The House of 1,000 Corpses and it's sequel, The Devil's Rejects. Both films had some major flaws but had a certain amount of raw energy that I enjoy in my horror movies. I have always preferred disturbing horror to monster movies or haunted house movies (but I still love the hell out of those movies too). When Halloween came out, it was a great half movie. Loved the first half by giving some interesting back story on Michael Myers but the second half kind of falls flat into remake territory. Now, Zombie is able to sequelize (is that a word?) his own remake and make it all on his own. And, like all his films, it has its flaws but I still enjoyed it.
The movie starts as soon as the first film ends and Laurie Strode is a complete mess. The once virgin, girl next door is now a punk rocking, foul mouthed, schizo with a bad temper. She now lives with her friend Annie and her father, the sheriff of Haddenfield (played by Brad Dourif who gives the film its best performance. One sequence involving his daughter is gut wrenching and tear jerking. Performances this good are unfounded and are never written like this). Dr. Loomis has also changed and he is now a self-centered author capitalizing on Michael Myers victims with his books and press meetings. And Myers of course is not dead and he returns to find his sister and end it all.
The version I saw in theaters decided to edit out all the best parts in my opinion. There is some great, dramatic scenes with Laurie and Annie and how they are drifting apart as friends and are still tormented by what had happened to them. Laurie now sees a psychiatrist (Margot Kidder) who is trying hard to help her. In the theatrical version, Kidder has a cameo. In the unrated version, the scenes are longer and we now see Laurie has become a delusional liar and desperately needs prescription drugs to block the bad memories out. Why were these scenes taken out? Running at almost two hours, this is the "epic" slasher film. The dramatic scenes work very well and are so well acted and captivating, that whenever Myers showed up to kill off a few people, I was getting bored. I would love to see what Zombie could do with a thriller or a dark drama.
This is also one of the most graphic and depressing slasher films I have ever seen. Characters don't just get stabbed and die. They cough blood, they can't speak, they convulse, they cry, they crawl, they vomit, it's all very realistic and the make up effects are some of the most disgusting I have seen in a recent Hollywood movie. While some will say the violence is exploitive, I feel the violence works better for being realistic. By making the brutality of Myers slayings as real as they can be, it makes the dramatic scenes all the more better. It is also honest as death is not as quick as it is in the movies. Violence should almost always be portrayed realistically. Horror can be scary with the whole "boo" tactic, but to me, being disturbed or troubled is much more scary. I felt this alot during Halloween II.
Halloween II still has some major flaws. Logistically, how does Myers know where Laurie is going to be? How can he track her? Also, Zombie adds these really silly dream sequences throughout the film of a young Michael Myers and his dead mother with a white horse. These scenes literally make no sense and is laughably bad. The only reason these scenes are in the film is that Zombie has to put his wife Sherri Moon Zombie in every movie he makes. Since she died in the first film, he added these stupid sequences which almost ruin it. I am also not a fan of how they handled Dr. Sam Loomis's character. He is such a piece of shit now and when he tries to redeem himself, it's too little too late and doesn't work. Malcolm McDowell does he best in the role but it doesn't work for me. And Zombie's trademark of everyone talking dirty and swearing every other word continues and it is distracting.
Now the ending...the unrated version is different. Why did Zombie shoot two endings? Well, neither one of them I cared for but I think the unrated version plays a bit better with the outcome and Myers does finally speak but the theatrical version at least has Dr. Loomis try and redeem himself. Both endings are unsatisfying.
One last note: does anyone have the blu ray of this? The picture was awful with too much grain.
Halloween II is a very different kind of slasher film, utilizing alot of great aspects but allowing alot of bad ones as well. The film is very gory and each death scene is realistic. Even head snapping and strangulation is graphic thanks to the sound effects and performances. The unrated version is much better though and it does help to watch both films back to back as I did tonight.
Oct 22, 2010
October 22nd - THE BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW (1971)
If you are a fan of Hammer films or are interested in the late 60's/early 70's satanic witch movies such as Mark of the Devil, The Witchfinder General, or The Wicker Man you may enjoy this one. Everyone else, you may want to stay away.
Truly bizarre and slow moving horror film set in the 17th century about an English village where all the young people slowly turn into devil worshipers when one of them finds a severed head stuck in the mud on some farmland. As the young people in the village (and some old folks too) start to turn evil, they cut off their own body parts and grow dark, hairy patches of skin on them which they all call "satan's skin".
The movie does move at a snails pace and it doesn't help that the story jumps around from different members of this village community. The movie is odd but yet I still found it intriguing and truly strange. Why is this happening? Why is the beautiful Angel suddenly the leader and trying to seduce the local minister? What the hell is that monster in the shadows? The movie doesn't really answer questions and for those that like things wrapped up nicely, you'll be disappointed.
The music is very creepy and demonic sounding, building great tension. The actors do a good job and Linda Heyden is a knockout. Seeing her completely nude was shocking in itself. The set design and autumn setting was also nice and helped set the mood. The movie has great atmosphere and would make for a good Halloween movie if you can stay awake and have some patience.
Truly bizarre and slow moving horror film set in the 17th century about an English village where all the young people slowly turn into devil worshipers when one of them finds a severed head stuck in the mud on some farmland. As the young people in the village (and some old folks too) start to turn evil, they cut off their own body parts and grow dark, hairy patches of skin on them which they all call "satan's skin".
The movie does move at a snails pace and it doesn't help that the story jumps around from different members of this village community. The movie is odd but yet I still found it intriguing and truly strange. Why is this happening? Why is the beautiful Angel suddenly the leader and trying to seduce the local minister? What the hell is that monster in the shadows? The movie doesn't really answer questions and for those that like things wrapped up nicely, you'll be disappointed.
The music is very creepy and demonic sounding, building great tension. The actors do a good job and Linda Heyden is a knockout. Seeing her completely nude was shocking in itself. The set design and autumn setting was also nice and helped set the mood. The movie has great atmosphere and would make for a good Halloween movie if you can stay awake and have some patience.
Oct 21, 2010
October 21st - NIGHT OF THE DEMONS (2010)
Why do I do this to myself?
This is the remake of the 1988 semi-cult horror film that is neither better nor worse than the original film. I still don't understand the love the original film has. I find it overly silly, dull, unoriginal, and obviously cheap. The best thing I can say is the remake looks like they had more money to spend.
The plot is kind of strange to me. It's Halloween, and a huge party is being held at a mysterious mansion hosted by a girl named Angela. Angela is known as the local slut apparently and after the party, some of the friends and Angela play spin the bottle and make out. When they all split up to go their separate ways, skeletons are discovered in a basement room where a brutal massacre happened many years ago. When Angela gets her finger scraped by one of the skeletons, she turns into a demon and tries to bite and eat everyone else, turning them into demons. You've seen this in a bunch of films (if you want a better film that is very similar, rent Lamberto Bava's Demons) and all done better with more originality.
But what makes the plot strange is we get a subplot involving one of the girl's ex boyfriends (a bloated and embarrassed looking Edward Furlong) who owes money to a mobster. I am still unsure what the whole point of this subplot was for and why it is so out of left field. It was as if the writers came up with an idea and scraped it while filming the movie and the editor forgot to take this scene out.
Shannon Elizabeth plays Angela, giving her no personality at all and being downright dull. I think Elizabeth really needs to fire her agent. And poor Eddie Furlong. Looking at him, I couldn't help but feel sorry for the guy. From starring in one of the biggest summer films ever made to co-starring in direct to DVD horror films and looking like a mid-30's Joe Spinell, it really is shocking.
Night of the Demons continues to have really bad one-liners and out of place comedy like the original film and it's sequel.. If that's your cup of tea, I guess you'll be happy. I will say it is the first horror film where a woman becomes a demon by being sodomized by her possessed lover. And the "lipstick in the nipple" scene is back from the original. I bet you were all dying to see that again. The make-up effects are ok but the filmmaker relies too much on awful CGI and quick-cut editing that is the norm now. Too bad too as the creatures do look more frightening this time around when they are shown.
I have seen much worse but that doesn't mean that this film isn't crap. I would love to hear from fans of the original film or it's sequel to tell me why they like these movies so much.
This is the remake of the 1988 semi-cult horror film that is neither better nor worse than the original film. I still don't understand the love the original film has. I find it overly silly, dull, unoriginal, and obviously cheap. The best thing I can say is the remake looks like they had more money to spend.
The plot is kind of strange to me. It's Halloween, and a huge party is being held at a mysterious mansion hosted by a girl named Angela. Angela is known as the local slut apparently and after the party, some of the friends and Angela play spin the bottle and make out. When they all split up to go their separate ways, skeletons are discovered in a basement room where a brutal massacre happened many years ago. When Angela gets her finger scraped by one of the skeletons, she turns into a demon and tries to bite and eat everyone else, turning them into demons. You've seen this in a bunch of films (if you want a better film that is very similar, rent Lamberto Bava's Demons) and all done better with more originality.
But what makes the plot strange is we get a subplot involving one of the girl's ex boyfriends (a bloated and embarrassed looking Edward Furlong) who owes money to a mobster. I am still unsure what the whole point of this subplot was for and why it is so out of left field. It was as if the writers came up with an idea and scraped it while filming the movie and the editor forgot to take this scene out.
Shannon Elizabeth plays Angela, giving her no personality at all and being downright dull. I think Elizabeth really needs to fire her agent. And poor Eddie Furlong. Looking at him, I couldn't help but feel sorry for the guy. From starring in one of the biggest summer films ever made to co-starring in direct to DVD horror films and looking like a mid-30's Joe Spinell, it really is shocking.
Night of the Demons continues to have really bad one-liners and out of place comedy like the original film and it's sequel.. If that's your cup of tea, I guess you'll be happy. I will say it is the first horror film where a woman becomes a demon by being sodomized by her possessed lover. And the "lipstick in the nipple" scene is back from the original. I bet you were all dying to see that again. The make-up effects are ok but the filmmaker relies too much on awful CGI and quick-cut editing that is the norm now. Too bad too as the creatures do look more frightening this time around when they are shown.
I have seen much worse but that doesn't mean that this film isn't crap. I would love to hear from fans of the original film or it's sequel to tell me why they like these movies so much.
Oct 20, 2010
October 20th - NIGHT OF THE DEMONS 2 (1994)
The original Night of the Demons has turned into this cult classic that now has a small following. I never really got it. I found the film overly stupid and silly with cheap sets and a lackluster plot. Aside from some good make up effects by Steve Johnson, the film didn't have much going for it aside for some T&A. Well, the sequel is a step up from the original...barely.
The film takes place at a Catholic school for troubled teens. It's Halloween and the students are having a Halloween party at the school. When some of the more adventurous and naughty kids decide to instead go to the house that Angela killed all her friends at...well, you know the drill.
The only returning character is Angela and it was nice to see Amelia Kinkade return in the role. Steve Johnson also returns to give us some more gruesome make up effects. One change that I was thankful for was that the amount of one-liners is at a minimal here. Sure, there are an overabundance of lame jokes but those awful one-liners are at least absent. Also, the acting is a bit better and it was funny to see Ben Stiller's wife Christine Taylor in an early role.
However, like the first film, it takes awhile for anything to happen. The film plays more like a special Halloween episode of Saved By the Bell than a straight up horror film. And even though I said the acting is better in this film than the original, that isn't saying much. Thankfully we have plenty of boobs, butts and bush to keep us horny male viewers from falling asleep.
Night of the Demons 2 is what it is. It's not awful but it isn't very good. Consider me an outcast; I am not a fan of this series.
The film takes place at a Catholic school for troubled teens. It's Halloween and the students are having a Halloween party at the school. When some of the more adventurous and naughty kids decide to instead go to the house that Angela killed all her friends at...well, you know the drill.
The only returning character is Angela and it was nice to see Amelia Kinkade return in the role. Steve Johnson also returns to give us some more gruesome make up effects. One change that I was thankful for was that the amount of one-liners is at a minimal here. Sure, there are an overabundance of lame jokes but those awful one-liners are at least absent. Also, the acting is a bit better and it was funny to see Ben Stiller's wife Christine Taylor in an early role.
However, like the first film, it takes awhile for anything to happen. The film plays more like a special Halloween episode of Saved By the Bell than a straight up horror film. And even though I said the acting is better in this film than the original, that isn't saying much. Thankfully we have plenty of boobs, butts and bush to keep us horny male viewers from falling asleep.
Night of the Demons 2 is what it is. It's not awful but it isn't very good. Consider me an outcast; I am not a fan of this series.
Oct 19, 2010
October 19th - BLACK SHEEP (2006)
No, this is not a review of the Chris Farley film. This is a New Zealand film about killer sheep. Yeah you read that right. And shockingly, I found it to be a fun, gory little movie in the spirit of old Peter Jackson films.
The plot is super basic which may be the worst thing about the film: genetic engineering has turned sheep into these murderous creatures and the government is trying to cover it up. Think Jaws, Alligator, Piranha, yeah you know the drill. But instead of an animal that is actually scary, they come up with sheep. The idea of killer sheep is pretty funny and it was wise for the film makers to keep it silly but at the same time, treat it like an actual horror film. And to my surprise the film works despite the predictable premise.
Director Jonathan King borrows heavily from Peter Jackson's earlier films like Bad Taste and Braindead, using hand held camera work, shooting on grainy film, and of course keeping the tone very light but filled with disgusting graphic effects. Even Weta who did the effects for Lord of the Rings was brought on to do this film. The killer sheep do look great and the man-sheep monsters are really good. There is even one transformation scene that is almost lifted out of An American Wedrewolf in London. Blood flows freely in Black Sheep and we get plenty of it. Limbs hacked off, throats ripped out, intestines pulled out, and my favorite: a sheep rips off one guy's manhood.
If you like your horror/comedies with an extra amount of blood and you don't mind the heavy accents of the New Zealand actors, Black Sheep is worth a look but it isn't for everyone.
The plot is super basic which may be the worst thing about the film: genetic engineering has turned sheep into these murderous creatures and the government is trying to cover it up. Think Jaws, Alligator, Piranha, yeah you know the drill. But instead of an animal that is actually scary, they come up with sheep. The idea of killer sheep is pretty funny and it was wise for the film makers to keep it silly but at the same time, treat it like an actual horror film. And to my surprise the film works despite the predictable premise.
Director Jonathan King borrows heavily from Peter Jackson's earlier films like Bad Taste and Braindead, using hand held camera work, shooting on grainy film, and of course keeping the tone very light but filled with disgusting graphic effects. Even Weta who did the effects for Lord of the Rings was brought on to do this film. The killer sheep do look great and the man-sheep monsters are really good. There is even one transformation scene that is almost lifted out of An American Wedrewolf in London. Blood flows freely in Black Sheep and we get plenty of it. Limbs hacked off, throats ripped out, intestines pulled out, and my favorite: a sheep rips off one guy's manhood.
If you like your horror/comedies with an extra amount of blood and you don't mind the heavy accents of the New Zealand actors, Black Sheep is worth a look but it isn't for everyone.
I MISSED A DAY!
I tried...really. But alas, I miss Monday October 18th. I went to work and went to the Chicago Blackhawks game with my in-laws and wife and it went in OT. By the time I got home and said good bye to everyone, it was 11 pm. I climbed into the spare room bed so not to wake up Michelle and flicked thru my DVR trying to find the shortest possible horror film and I must have passed out or something because next thing I knew the wife was waking me up at 5:00 this morning to get ready for work. I apologize but I don't know if anyone even reads these so maybe I am safe.
Oct 17, 2010
October 17th - SAW VI (2009)
Getting ready for the upcoming (and supposedly final) Saw film, I was finally able to watch 2009's Saw VI. This is the only Saw film that I didn't get a chance to see in the theater and it is also the lowest grossing of all the Saw films. It also happens to be one of the best in the series.
To set the record straight, I think the Saw films are silly and filled with some bad acting and annoying editing tricks that can cause epilepsy. However, as the series went along I noticed the films seemed to have gotten better and I got sucked into the story and characters. What I also like is that all the films link together and are legit sequels and not a sequel by name only. So yeah I like the Saw films but I know they aren't works of art. I wouldn't even recommend this series to people since these films are like eating apple pie with melted cheese on the top. It's an aquired taste.
Saw VI picks up right after the fifth film ended and Det. Hoffman is still the mastermind behind the killings. At Jigsaw's request via his will, Hoffman is given instruction to kidnap certain people that Jigsaw would like to be forced to play a game with. He selects a man who works for a health insurance agency who denied Jigsaw insurance when he was diagnosed with cancer. While this story is going on, we also see Hoffman trying desperately not to be caught by his fellow officers. Both stories work well and of course there are flashbacks and references to numerous Saw films that surprisngly work well and fit perfectly into the timeline of this series.
For gorehounds, I am happy to report that Saw VI doesn't skimp on the grue. Bodies explode, people get burned, limbs are cut off, people are stabbed or shot, and one character gets acid poured inside him. All done with...drum roll....ACTUAL PRACTICAL EFFECTS! That's right, the CGI that started to get used in parts IV and V are gone and some really nasty gore effects are on display here.
While I still think Saw III is the best in the series, VI is up there as one of the best entries. I look forward to Saw 3-D.
To set the record straight, I think the Saw films are silly and filled with some bad acting and annoying editing tricks that can cause epilepsy. However, as the series went along I noticed the films seemed to have gotten better and I got sucked into the story and characters. What I also like is that all the films link together and are legit sequels and not a sequel by name only. So yeah I like the Saw films but I know they aren't works of art. I wouldn't even recommend this series to people since these films are like eating apple pie with melted cheese on the top. It's an aquired taste.
Saw VI picks up right after the fifth film ended and Det. Hoffman is still the mastermind behind the killings. At Jigsaw's request via his will, Hoffman is given instruction to kidnap certain people that Jigsaw would like to be forced to play a game with. He selects a man who works for a health insurance agency who denied Jigsaw insurance when he was diagnosed with cancer. While this story is going on, we also see Hoffman trying desperately not to be caught by his fellow officers. Both stories work well and of course there are flashbacks and references to numerous Saw films that surprisngly work well and fit perfectly into the timeline of this series.
For gorehounds, I am happy to report that Saw VI doesn't skimp on the grue. Bodies explode, people get burned, limbs are cut off, people are stabbed or shot, and one character gets acid poured inside him. All done with...drum roll....ACTUAL PRACTICAL EFFECTS! That's right, the CGI that started to get used in parts IV and V are gone and some really nasty gore effects are on display here.
While I still think Saw III is the best in the series, VI is up there as one of the best entries. I look forward to Saw 3-D.
Oct 16, 2010
October 16th - TWICE TOLD TALES (1963)
Ahh, I have returned to the anthology film. It's still one of my favorite types of movies and Vincent Price was in many back in the 1960's. He and Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing were in numerous horror anthology films. Most would be based on either Edger Allen Poe or H.P. Lovecraft stories. This time I have watched Twice Told Tales based on the works by Nathaniel Hawthorne.
There are three short tales of suspense and mystery. The first is "Dr. Heidegger's Experiment" about two old friends who dabble in the black arts to regain their youth. The second is "Rappacini's Daughter" about a mad scientist who has conducted an evil experiment on his own daughter. The last one is "House of the Seven Gables" about a family curse.
The problem with this film is that the first two stories are pretty bland. Think of the weakest episodes of Twilight Zone or Amazing Stories and that is what you get with the first two stories. The first one is especially boring which makes little sense to me since you would want a more action oriented tale to suck the viewer in. The second tale is more predictable, thus making the film dull. It doesn't help that the acting by the main hero downright sucks in this. The last story is by far the best but only because it is more of a horror story set in a haunted house. Price is especially good here playing a villian.
I didn't dislike the film but I wouldn't really recommend it either. The trailer to the movie shows almost the entire film and it's best parts. Maybe watch that instead.
There are three short tales of suspense and mystery. The first is "Dr. Heidegger's Experiment" about two old friends who dabble in the black arts to regain their youth. The second is "Rappacini's Daughter" about a mad scientist who has conducted an evil experiment on his own daughter. The last one is "House of the Seven Gables" about a family curse.
The problem with this film is that the first two stories are pretty bland. Think of the weakest episodes of Twilight Zone or Amazing Stories and that is what you get with the first two stories. The first one is especially boring which makes little sense to me since you would want a more action oriented tale to suck the viewer in. The second tale is more predictable, thus making the film dull. It doesn't help that the acting by the main hero downright sucks in this. The last story is by far the best but only because it is more of a horror story set in a haunted house. Price is especially good here playing a villian.
I didn't dislike the film but I wouldn't really recommend it either. The trailer to the movie shows almost the entire film and it's best parts. Maybe watch that instead.
Oct 15, 2010
October 15th - THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE (2009)
It's one thing to make a really sick and controversal film. It's another thing to make a boring, sick controversal film. The Human Centipede falls in the later.
When two American female travellers in Germany blow a tire in a storm, they take refuge at a surgeons house for shelter. Little do they know, they are about to be put into a bizarre and gross experiment and turned into a human centipede. I won't go into detail in how the doctor does it but the concept is kind of fascinating and very gross and unintentionally funny. However it is executed poorly.
The film just drags on and on and gets boring real quick. The acting by the two women is downright terrible and their dialogue almost looks made up on the spot. Although the doctor (who looks like Lance Henriksen) is played well by Dieter Laser, we really don't know much about him and why he's doing this. What makes the film even more dull is that writer/producer/director Tom Six doesn't really have much to say other than, "Hey wouldn't it be gross if these three people were combined together?" My friend Nick nailed it I think when he said that Six is a good producer but bad director. His writing and directing is just down right bland and amaturish.
I guess The Human Centipede is worth checking out if you want to be grossed out but even for die hard horror fans like myself that has seen films like Nekromantik or the Guinea Pig movies, the film is kind of tame. I wasn't disturbed or horrified watching this one, I was fighting to stay awake.
When two American female travellers in Germany blow a tire in a storm, they take refuge at a surgeons house for shelter. Little do they know, they are about to be put into a bizarre and gross experiment and turned into a human centipede. I won't go into detail in how the doctor does it but the concept is kind of fascinating and very gross and unintentionally funny. However it is executed poorly.
The film just drags on and on and gets boring real quick. The acting by the two women is downright terrible and their dialogue almost looks made up on the spot. Although the doctor (who looks like Lance Henriksen) is played well by Dieter Laser, we really don't know much about him and why he's doing this. What makes the film even more dull is that writer/producer/director Tom Six doesn't really have much to say other than, "Hey wouldn't it be gross if these three people were combined together?" My friend Nick nailed it I think when he said that Six is a good producer but bad director. His writing and directing is just down right bland and amaturish.
I guess The Human Centipede is worth checking out if you want to be grossed out but even for die hard horror fans like myself that has seen films like Nekromantik or the Guinea Pig movies, the film is kind of tame. I wasn't disturbed or horrified watching this one, I was fighting to stay awake.
Oct 14, 2010
October 14th - CHILDREN OF THE DAMNED (1964)
Being a huge fan of the original Village of the Damned, I was excited to finally see this sequel. I have owned the DVD for years now and wasn't sure what was holding me back from seeing it. Although it is worth a look, Children seems to be lacking something and is a subpar sequel.
Maybe it's because this really isn't a sequel but more of a re-telling. A bunch of intelligent children from around the world are gathered in London by scientists and psychologists for study. But soon they all escape from their embassy's and gather in an abandoned church to be with one another and stay safe. When the military is brought in, the children put their powers of mind control to use.
I really enjoyed the opening as the main child Paul is introduced. He is a quiet and yet intelligent kid and when his mother is confronted about her son, she later cries and screams at Paul saying how much she hates him and what he's done to her. This is a really tense and almost disturbing scene, thus never showing or telling us what he did to his mother. But as the film goes along, the kids are soon portrayed as victims and the film gets bogged down with political undetones, throwing away the good old fashion suspense and horror that we got from the original film. Don't bore me with messages and politics! Keep that shit out of my horror movies.
For some reason, the sequel abandons the idea of the kids growing at a rabid state and that they all have white hair. Aside form their glowing eyes, no mention at all of the original film or how these kids came about (especially since they all got blown up at the end of the original).
But I will say the direction is well done and the film isn't bad by any means. It is just kind of plain and the horror is watered down this time around. When asked why the children are here, they answer, "We don't know." That was a good sign that this film didn't know either what it wanted to be.
Maybe it's because this really isn't a sequel but more of a re-telling. A bunch of intelligent children from around the world are gathered in London by scientists and psychologists for study. But soon they all escape from their embassy's and gather in an abandoned church to be with one another and stay safe. When the military is brought in, the children put their powers of mind control to use.
I really enjoyed the opening as the main child Paul is introduced. He is a quiet and yet intelligent kid and when his mother is confronted about her son, she later cries and screams at Paul saying how much she hates him and what he's done to her. This is a really tense and almost disturbing scene, thus never showing or telling us what he did to his mother. But as the film goes along, the kids are soon portrayed as victims and the film gets bogged down with political undetones, throwing away the good old fashion suspense and horror that we got from the original film. Don't bore me with messages and politics! Keep that shit out of my horror movies.
For some reason, the sequel abandons the idea of the kids growing at a rabid state and that they all have white hair. Aside form their glowing eyes, no mention at all of the original film or how these kids came about (especially since they all got blown up at the end of the original).
But I will say the direction is well done and the film isn't bad by any means. It is just kind of plain and the horror is watered down this time around. When asked why the children are here, they answer, "We don't know." That was a good sign that this film didn't know either what it wanted to be.
Oct 13, 2010
October 13th - SUCK (2010)
Perfect title.
After a struggling rock band's (I use "rock" loosly since the music this band makes is that modern new rock that is made for pussies and homos) manger leaves them, the female of the band decides to not stay with her bandmates but chooses to stay the night with a stranger. Well, this stranger turns out to be a rock n roll vampire! Before you can say "cool style man" the entire band has been transformed into a new cool rock band that can float while playing. They just have a problem with killing a few people along the way to their next gig.
Yeah, the film is as bad as it sounds. Why did I bother? There are numerous cameos by actually good musicians such as Iggy Pop, Henry Rollins and one of my personal favorites Alice Cooper. Even Malcolm McDowell has a smaller role as Eddie Van Helsing, a vampire killer who has his own personal vendetta with the vampires. None of these celebrities is worth sitting through this 90 minute horror/comedy. This is just painful to watch.
The "comedy" is down right bad and cheesy. Nothing is funny and I can almost hear the non existent laugh track pause when certain characters speak. The main vampire looks like a black haired Carrot Top and he occasionally busts into a few songs out of nowhere, when he's not walking in slow motion of course. I guess they were trying to pad out the running time. I would have shut this off or fast forward the film if it wasn't for this blog. I will admit, I couldn't take the musical numbers after awhile and slammed my finger on that FF button every time music started to kick in. One thing I hate is a bad horror film. But what I hate even more are horror/comedy/musicals. Adding those three genres together is like adding mustard to your steak.
Chalk it up to just another shitty vampire film. I need to watch Martin or Near Dark to remember a time when vampire movies were decent.
After a struggling rock band's (I use "rock" loosly since the music this band makes is that modern new rock that is made for pussies and homos) manger leaves them, the female of the band decides to not stay with her bandmates but chooses to stay the night with a stranger. Well, this stranger turns out to be a rock n roll vampire! Before you can say "cool style man" the entire band has been transformed into a new cool rock band that can float while playing. They just have a problem with killing a few people along the way to their next gig.
Yeah, the film is as bad as it sounds. Why did I bother? There are numerous cameos by actually good musicians such as Iggy Pop, Henry Rollins and one of my personal favorites Alice Cooper. Even Malcolm McDowell has a smaller role as Eddie Van Helsing, a vampire killer who has his own personal vendetta with the vampires. None of these celebrities is worth sitting through this 90 minute horror/comedy. This is just painful to watch.
The "comedy" is down right bad and cheesy. Nothing is funny and I can almost hear the non existent laugh track pause when certain characters speak. The main vampire looks like a black haired Carrot Top and he occasionally busts into a few songs out of nowhere, when he's not walking in slow motion of course. I guess they were trying to pad out the running time. I would have shut this off or fast forward the film if it wasn't for this blog. I will admit, I couldn't take the musical numbers after awhile and slammed my finger on that FF button every time music started to kick in. One thing I hate is a bad horror film. But what I hate even more are horror/comedy/musicals. Adding those three genres together is like adding mustard to your steak.
Chalk it up to just another shitty vampire film. I need to watch Martin or Near Dark to remember a time when vampire movies were decent.
Oct 12, 2010
October 12th - TO THE DEVIL...A DAUGHTER (1976)
One of Hammer's last films, I am sad to say that they went out with a whimper. To the Devil...a Daughter is a mess and was just trying to be another Exorcist/The Omen clone. Too bad too because it started off promising.
The first half of the film isn't bad and held my interest. A satanic priest (Christopher Lee) is going to use a nun (Nastassja Kinski) in some sick satanic pact with the devil but her father blackmails the priest and is trying to save his daughter. He enlists an American author (Richard Widmark, who looks embarrased being in this) who has written books on satanism to help him protect his daughter.
What I enjoyed about the first half was that the film plays out like a mystery. Sure, it borrows a little from Rosemary's Baby and The Exorcist but the film doesn't tell you exactly what is going on and you start to piece together what is happening. Ah! A thinking person's horror film! This I like and the slow pacing doesn't bother me and it's always great to see actors I like in an interesting but yet vauge story.
Then suddenly, the film falls apart completely. With bizarre flashbacks and scenes of orgies and some bloody baby monster which may be the worst puppet I have ever seen in a film, the To the Devil... a Daughter turns laughably bad and just down right cheap. The suspense and mystery gets completely wiped out and confusion and boredom take over. When we finally get the climax, it literally makes no sense at all and ends abruptly. Apparently, the original ending was scrapped and the writers were asked to end the film this way. Christopher Lee was furious, the author to the novel this was based on was also furious and Richard Widmark walked off set numerous times because of issues with the production. I don't think the original ending could have saved the film since it started to go downhill at the 1 hour mark. Shame too since the first half was promising.
And for those that did see this, that was not Christopher Lee nude. To you the viewer...a stunt double.
The first half of the film isn't bad and held my interest. A satanic priest (Christopher Lee) is going to use a nun (Nastassja Kinski) in some sick satanic pact with the devil but her father blackmails the priest and is trying to save his daughter. He enlists an American author (Richard Widmark, who looks embarrased being in this) who has written books on satanism to help him protect his daughter.
What I enjoyed about the first half was that the film plays out like a mystery. Sure, it borrows a little from Rosemary's Baby and The Exorcist but the film doesn't tell you exactly what is going on and you start to piece together what is happening. Ah! A thinking person's horror film! This I like and the slow pacing doesn't bother me and it's always great to see actors I like in an interesting but yet vauge story.
Then suddenly, the film falls apart completely. With bizarre flashbacks and scenes of orgies and some bloody baby monster which may be the worst puppet I have ever seen in a film, the To the Devil... a Daughter turns laughably bad and just down right cheap. The suspense and mystery gets completely wiped out and confusion and boredom take over. When we finally get the climax, it literally makes no sense at all and ends abruptly. Apparently, the original ending was scrapped and the writers were asked to end the film this way. Christopher Lee was furious, the author to the novel this was based on was also furious and Richard Widmark walked off set numerous times because of issues with the production. I don't think the original ending could have saved the film since it started to go downhill at the 1 hour mark. Shame too since the first half was promising.
And for those that did see this, that was not Christopher Lee nude. To you the viewer...a stunt double.
October 11th - COUNT YORGA, VAMPIRE (1970)
I apologize for this being late as the wife and I spent the night in Niagara Falls for a mini vacation. I did however bring my portable DVD player up with me and I continued my streak of watching a horror film every day. I brought with me the DVD of Count Yorga, Vampire and I am happy to say it was a good choice.
A bunch of young friends get mixed up with a count who happens to be a vampire. When he bites one of them, the friends get a doctor who believes in vampires to help defeat the count. Very basic plot which is more or less a re-telling of the Dracula story. But the film works thanks to its creepy atmosphere and for me, it's 70's setting. Why are 70's movies more scary than any other films? Maybe it is just me but those films have always been scarier than anything made before or after. There is a scene in a van where Count Yorga attacks a couple outside his castle. You've seen this kind of scene before in other films where it's either a serial killer or monster but the direction, music, writing all work so much better here that it is frightening. What really works the most is actor Robert Quary as Count Yorga. He is charming and yet menacing and has a certain ego where he knows he can kick your ass and there is nothing you can do about it. Even with the white make up and cheap fangs, he was kind of creepy.
What I also like about the film is there are touches of humor that work well. Nothing over the top or silly but little bits here and there that made me think of An American Werewolf in London.
At a tight 93 minutes, this film goes by fast. I found the film really well done even for its low budget. Count Yorga, Vampire would make for a good rainy Saturday afternoon movie or a decent Halloween selection. The film is followed by a sequel and I can't wait to see it.
A bunch of young friends get mixed up with a count who happens to be a vampire. When he bites one of them, the friends get a doctor who believes in vampires to help defeat the count. Very basic plot which is more or less a re-telling of the Dracula story. But the film works thanks to its creepy atmosphere and for me, it's 70's setting. Why are 70's movies more scary than any other films? Maybe it is just me but those films have always been scarier than anything made before or after. There is a scene in a van where Count Yorga attacks a couple outside his castle. You've seen this kind of scene before in other films where it's either a serial killer or monster but the direction, music, writing all work so much better here that it is frightening. What really works the most is actor Robert Quary as Count Yorga. He is charming and yet menacing and has a certain ego where he knows he can kick your ass and there is nothing you can do about it. Even with the white make up and cheap fangs, he was kind of creepy.
What I also like about the film is there are touches of humor that work well. Nothing over the top or silly but little bits here and there that made me think of An American Werewolf in London.
At a tight 93 minutes, this film goes by fast. I found the film really well done even for its low budget. Count Yorga, Vampire would make for a good rainy Saturday afternoon movie or a decent Halloween selection. The film is followed by a sequel and I can't wait to see it.
Oct 10, 2010
October 10th - IT'S ALIVE III: ISLAND OF THE ALIVE (1987)
Being a fan of the original It's Alive and the sequel It Lives Again, I was looking forward to Larry Cohen's third and final mutant baby movie. The first film is filled with social commentary about medical research and how women were given this certain drug while being pregnant that causes their fetus to turn into mutant creatures. The second film takes place a year later with the father of the first film trying to help an expecting couple deal with their creature child. I am not sure what Larry Cohen was thinking with when he wrote/directed this third film. It was as if he was forced to make the third film and decided to make it silly and turn everything into a big joke.
It's Alive III starts off promising. A father of a mutant baby is in court and proves to the court that his child isn't a monster and shouldn't be killed. A kindly judge sentences the baby and four other mutant babies to a remote island where they will be unharmed. When the judge passes away, the father is then forced to go back to the island with a bunch of scientists to see how the babies are doing and possibly bring back one of them.
Michael Moriarty is the star and he is just a weird actor to begin with. He never seems to take a role seriously and in a weird way, I kind of get a kick out of that but his schtick gets old in this very quickly. Why is this father contstantly making jokes? Why can't he look at anyone in the eye when he speaks? The father seems more strange than the baby. And that is my biggest problem with this film, the film just seems so odd and out of place with the other two films. I don't get the joke.
The budget also seems to be at it's lowest here and we barely catch glimpses of the creatures but when we do, it looks really phony and silly. On top of that, we get scenes edited out of place. Two characters can be talking and then it cuts into their sentence and we see something else happen briefly and then it jumps back into the previous scene where it left off. Even certain shots even get re-used at times! The film just seems like a sloppy mess thrown together.
And to make matters worse, the film barely takes place on the island but at some cheap amusement park where we get long scenes of punks fighting people at the park or Michael Moriarty trying to pick up women or Karen Black throwing up in some man's car with him screaming and swearing at her. Was there even a script for this? Seems like everyone making this film was in on some joke that we the audience are not.
Skip this film and check out the first two movies.
It's Alive III starts off promising. A father of a mutant baby is in court and proves to the court that his child isn't a monster and shouldn't be killed. A kindly judge sentences the baby and four other mutant babies to a remote island where they will be unharmed. When the judge passes away, the father is then forced to go back to the island with a bunch of scientists to see how the babies are doing and possibly bring back one of them.
Michael Moriarty is the star and he is just a weird actor to begin with. He never seems to take a role seriously and in a weird way, I kind of get a kick out of that but his schtick gets old in this very quickly. Why is this father contstantly making jokes? Why can't he look at anyone in the eye when he speaks? The father seems more strange than the baby. And that is my biggest problem with this film, the film just seems so odd and out of place with the other two films. I don't get the joke.
The budget also seems to be at it's lowest here and we barely catch glimpses of the creatures but when we do, it looks really phony and silly. On top of that, we get scenes edited out of place. Two characters can be talking and then it cuts into their sentence and we see something else happen briefly and then it jumps back into the previous scene where it left off. Even certain shots even get re-used at times! The film just seems like a sloppy mess thrown together.
And to make matters worse, the film barely takes place on the island but at some cheap amusement park where we get long scenes of punks fighting people at the park or Michael Moriarty trying to pick up women or Karen Black throwing up in some man's car with him screaming and swearing at her. Was there even a script for this? Seems like everyone making this film was in on some joke that we the audience are not.
Skip this film and check out the first two movies.
Oct 9, 2010
October 9th - MY SOUL TO TAKE - 3D (2010)
Wow...I am speechless. I don't know where to start or what to say. Wes Craven's newest shitfest may be the single worst film I have ever seen in my life. I am not kidding, I have seen alot of films and I cannot think of a worse film than My Soul to Take. If I really hate a person and I wanted them to feel pure pain for an hour and 40 minutes, I would make them watch this. The military can now use this film for torture tactics against the Taliban.
I seriously have been staring at this screen for a good 10 minutes, not knowing what to say. I honestly feel dumber after having seen this pile of dung. I think I can explain the plot. But it is difficult because it literally makes zero sense. It has something to do with a killer with split personalities being killed and 16 years later, seven kids who were born on the day he died are now being haunted by the killer. Something along those lines because I am unsure if that is even true. The film is a mess in every way so might as well start with the script. Blame that on Craven as well, he wrote this crap. The screenplay is so inept and so confusing, no one knew what was going on through out this film. Scenes were edited so choppily or dragged on for so long and each scene had NOTHING to do with any of the other scenes. I counted at least 20 times where I said outloud, "What?" with a laugh because I found it funny. In fact, I was screaming with laughter at certain lines of dialogue ( "I want to see my unborn child." "Fuck your fucking unborn child!" ) or scenes that wouldn't end (high schoolers presenting a science project which had nothing to do with the story) or the opening of the film that was suppose to set up the story but had everyone so confused and wondering what they just saw. I guess this is either the worst film ever made or the funniest film of 2010.
The acting right from the get go is atrocious. Lines are delivered so flat and plain, it was groan inducing. Now the question remains, is the acting awful OR was it the lines that they were given bad? I think a combination of both. The characters themselves are so annoying and so phony, it was amazing in itself. I kept thinking: This can't really be happening right? Is this a joke?
The music is also awful. The music cues don't match at all with what is going on screen. The music isn't suspensful or scary or builds any suspense at all.
And the film just refused to end! Scenes would go on forever and it just wouldn't stop. The greatest sin for any movie is to be boring. Wes Craven has commited the sin. His film Vampire in Brooklyn is Citizen Kane compared to this. And this isn't one of those "so bad it's good" movies. No this is plain bad. Beyond bad.
And the 3-D sucked as well! It didn't work whatsoever however it did accomplish plenty of blurry images and ghostly characters that shouldn't have been seen. I swear this movie had to have been converted into 3-D as it looked lousy and after awhile I watched the film without the glasses and the picture looked fine to me. So yeah, I paid $13 for this turd. Maybe it was God's will for me to see this so I can warn you all about this putrid mess. Stay...far..away. I am serious. Don't go near it. The man who created Freddy is dead. I mock Romero, Carpenter and Raimi for making lousy horror films in their later years, but Mr. Craven... you are now the king. Congratulations. You haven't just made the worst film of 2010, you have made the worst film in your career. And crying about the MPAA or blaming the distributor won't work this time. The game is up.
I seriously have been staring at this screen for a good 10 minutes, not knowing what to say. I honestly feel dumber after having seen this pile of dung. I think I can explain the plot. But it is difficult because it literally makes zero sense. It has something to do with a killer with split personalities being killed and 16 years later, seven kids who were born on the day he died are now being haunted by the killer. Something along those lines because I am unsure if that is even true. The film is a mess in every way so might as well start with the script. Blame that on Craven as well, he wrote this crap. The screenplay is so inept and so confusing, no one knew what was going on through out this film. Scenes were edited so choppily or dragged on for so long and each scene had NOTHING to do with any of the other scenes. I counted at least 20 times where I said outloud, "What?" with a laugh because I found it funny. In fact, I was screaming with laughter at certain lines of dialogue ( "I want to see my unborn child." "Fuck your fucking unborn child!" ) or scenes that wouldn't end (high schoolers presenting a science project which had nothing to do with the story) or the opening of the film that was suppose to set up the story but had everyone so confused and wondering what they just saw. I guess this is either the worst film ever made or the funniest film of 2010.
The acting right from the get go is atrocious. Lines are delivered so flat and plain, it was groan inducing. Now the question remains, is the acting awful OR was it the lines that they were given bad? I think a combination of both. The characters themselves are so annoying and so phony, it was amazing in itself. I kept thinking: This can't really be happening right? Is this a joke?
The music is also awful. The music cues don't match at all with what is going on screen. The music isn't suspensful or scary or builds any suspense at all.
And the film just refused to end! Scenes would go on forever and it just wouldn't stop. The greatest sin for any movie is to be boring. Wes Craven has commited the sin. His film Vampire in Brooklyn is Citizen Kane compared to this. And this isn't one of those "so bad it's good" movies. No this is plain bad. Beyond bad.
And the 3-D sucked as well! It didn't work whatsoever however it did accomplish plenty of blurry images and ghostly characters that shouldn't have been seen. I swear this movie had to have been converted into 3-D as it looked lousy and after awhile I watched the film without the glasses and the picture looked fine to me. So yeah, I paid $13 for this turd. Maybe it was God's will for me to see this so I can warn you all about this putrid mess. Stay...far..away. I am serious. Don't go near it. The man who created Freddy is dead. I mock Romero, Carpenter and Raimi for making lousy horror films in their later years, but Mr. Craven... you are now the king. Congratulations. You haven't just made the worst film of 2010, you have made the worst film in your career. And crying about the MPAA or blaming the distributor won't work this time. The game is up.
Oct 8, 2010
October 8th - Olga's Girls (1964)
I guess I messed up on this. I thought this was a horror film and it really isn't. However, it is a sleazy film and if you like old 1960's sex films, this is for you.
Shot in black and white, Olga's Girls has no dialogue. It is a fake documentary with a narration by a male narrator and at times, Olga herself. The movie tells the story of Olga's life as a madame who buys junkie prostitutes, has lesbian sex, performs S&M, beats up her merchandise and once in awhile does the occasional murder. It is a really strange film and at times humerous and just bizarre.
The women are mostly big breasted and seem to be topless alot. Think of a Russ Meyer movie with more S&M and that is what you would get. The problem is, even though it is only 70 minutes long, the film gets boring and just drags. The weirdness soon wears off and you catch yourself checking the clock to see how much longer the film will last.
I guess you would need to be in the right mood to watch Olga's Girls. I'm just not sure what kind of mood that would be.
Shot in black and white, Olga's Girls has no dialogue. It is a fake documentary with a narration by a male narrator and at times, Olga herself. The movie tells the story of Olga's life as a madame who buys junkie prostitutes, has lesbian sex, performs S&M, beats up her merchandise and once in awhile does the occasional murder. It is a really strange film and at times humerous and just bizarre.
The women are mostly big breasted and seem to be topless alot. Think of a Russ Meyer movie with more S&M and that is what you would get. The problem is, even though it is only 70 minutes long, the film gets boring and just drags. The weirdness soon wears off and you catch yourself checking the clock to see how much longer the film will last.
I guess you would need to be in the right mood to watch Olga's Girls. I'm just not sure what kind of mood that would be.
Oct 7, 2010
October 7th - BLOODLUST! (1961)
I wanted a quick short film this time around as I wanted to watch the Chicago Blackhawks home opener so I went with an old drive-in exploitation film Bloodlust! This is borderline Ed Wood territory.
A bunch of youths are having fun on a boat (fishing and shooting discs - which seems really odd and out of place from the get go) decide to jump on the dingy and travel to an island to explore. They soon meet up with Dr. Balleau who takes them hostage with the help of his nuts henchmen (dressed like old 30's criminals and have the IQ of maybe 50). The good doctor likes to hunt and he is now bored with animals and his trophy case needs to be filled with humans. Yeah, it's pretty much a rip off of The Most Dangerous Game.
I did enjoy some humerous moments like the character of Betty knows judo and everytime she performs a move the camera is speeded up. I like Robert Reed (father of Brady Bunch and a closet homosexual) looking uncomfortable everytime he has to hold or touch or kiss his girlfriend. I laughed at some of the obviously fake severed heads and body parts. The ending literally ends with a guy screaming super loud and then suddenly cuts off. I will say I was surprised by the amount of blood in such an older film.
Bloodlust! is a piece of shit movie but with the right friends and enough alcoholic beverages, it isn't too bad. I prefer this than some big budget CGI bullshit starring actors from either Lost or The Hills.
A bunch of youths are having fun on a boat (fishing and shooting discs - which seems really odd and out of place from the get go) decide to jump on the dingy and travel to an island to explore. They soon meet up with Dr. Balleau who takes them hostage with the help of his nuts henchmen (dressed like old 30's criminals and have the IQ of maybe 50). The good doctor likes to hunt and he is now bored with animals and his trophy case needs to be filled with humans. Yeah, it's pretty much a rip off of The Most Dangerous Game.
I did enjoy some humerous moments like the character of Betty knows judo and everytime she performs a move the camera is speeded up. I like Robert Reed (father of Brady Bunch and a closet homosexual) looking uncomfortable everytime he has to hold or touch or kiss his girlfriend. I laughed at some of the obviously fake severed heads and body parts. The ending literally ends with a guy screaming super loud and then suddenly cuts off. I will say I was surprised by the amount of blood in such an older film.
Bloodlust! is a piece of shit movie but with the right friends and enough alcoholic beverages, it isn't too bad. I prefer this than some big budget CGI bullshit starring actors from either Lost or The Hills.
Oct 6, 2010
October 6th - I SELL THE DEAD (2008)
One of the joys I get being a movie fan is stumbling across a film that I haven't heard much about and having a ball watching it. I know a movie is good when I am talking to myself and laughing along with it and no one is around me. Or maybe I am losing my mind. Either way, I Sell the Dead is one of those films that I really enjoyed alot. If you are in the mood for a fast paced, 90 minute horror/comedy as if directed by The Coen Brothers, Terry Gilliam and Tim Burton with a touch of Evil Dead 2 thrown in, this is for you.
The comic book-esque story is about a 19th century grave robber who is about to be executed the next day. He speaks to a priest and just opens up to him, telling him his life story as a grave robber and his many adventures with vampires, aliens and zombies. Director Glenn McQuaid does a good job in the director's chair and I hope to see more films by him. He is primarily a visual effects artist and this is only his second film. The visual effects and editing is original and not done to show off (although I could have done without a few cartoon/comic book sequences).
The cast is very good too with Dominic Monaghan as the grave robber telling his life story. His comic timing works well in this. His partner in crime is played by Larry Fessenden who is also just as funny. I am a fan of Fessenden's directorial work such as Habit and the underrated Wendigo and he shows here that he is also a decent actor. Ron Perlman and Angus Scrimm also have smaller but meaty roles.
What also adds to the fun is that you can tell that director McQuaid loves horor and isn't poking fun but making a film that embraces the genre. He does focus more on the humor than the horror but the movie is so much fun, it wasn't a big deal to me. I was even impressed with how little CGI was used in this which seems to be the norm in all modern horror films. I hope my expectations weren't low because of my hatred for most modern horror films, thus making this review biased.
I really recommend I Sell the Dead if you are in the mood for light horror or just something a bit different.
The comic book-esque story is about a 19th century grave robber who is about to be executed the next day. He speaks to a priest and just opens up to him, telling him his life story as a grave robber and his many adventures with vampires, aliens and zombies. Director Glenn McQuaid does a good job in the director's chair and I hope to see more films by him. He is primarily a visual effects artist and this is only his second film. The visual effects and editing is original and not done to show off (although I could have done without a few cartoon/comic book sequences).
The cast is very good too with Dominic Monaghan as the grave robber telling his life story. His comic timing works well in this. His partner in crime is played by Larry Fessenden who is also just as funny. I am a fan of Fessenden's directorial work such as Habit and the underrated Wendigo and he shows here that he is also a decent actor. Ron Perlman and Angus Scrimm also have smaller but meaty roles.
What also adds to the fun is that you can tell that director McQuaid loves horor and isn't poking fun but making a film that embraces the genre. He does focus more on the humor than the horror but the movie is so much fun, it wasn't a big deal to me. I was even impressed with how little CGI was used in this which seems to be the norm in all modern horror films. I hope my expectations weren't low because of my hatred for most modern horror films, thus making this review biased.
I really recommend I Sell the Dead if you are in the mood for light horror or just something a bit different.
Oct 5, 2010
October 5th - LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (2009)
Ok, I guess it was time to review a contemporary movie huh?
Anyone who knows me, should already know about my weird and strange love for the original Last House on the Left. As much as it is dated and sometimes downright silly, I always found it strangely disturbing and yet a fast paced horror film with a great soundtrack done by the films main villain, David Hess. Known for not only being Wes Craven's first film, it is known for being one of the first exploitation horror films that showed rape and torture in such graphic detail. In today's standards, it may be considered weak. But I love every bit of that movie. So yeah, when I heard of the remake coming out, I slammed my foot down and refused to pay money to see it. When it got semi-decent reviews I became intrigued and decided to wait for DVD. I have been holding off for awhile and finally I broke down.
The Last House on the Left remake is the story of a family coping with the death of a son/brother. It is summer time so the family decides to go to their cottage in the woods for awhile. The daughter and her carefree friend end up meeting a "family" of escaped convicts who take the gals hostage as the cops are on their tail. When the girls try to escape, the convicts rape and kill them. They take refuge in one of the dead girls homes and when the Mom and Dad find out, they take matter sin their own hands.
I will admit, the remake changed a few things in the storyline that now work: the family dealing with the death of a loved one worked well, the girl's neckless is now a gift from her dead brother and not some hippie peace symbol, the father being a doctor is shown more and put to some use, instead of the car breaking down it is run off the road by the girl's trying to escape. One of the attacks in the house was dirty and realistic. Little things like this worked well.
However, there was more problems I had with some of the changes. The villains look too much like movie stars playing bad guys. They are too good looking with either a mustache or bruise to cover up their good looks. There is no David Hess or Fred Lincoln in this film. The fact that Krug was able to control his junkie son by promising him drugs is now gone and Junior is now just afraid of his dad because he's scary and mean. I never got a feeling the family was very close to the daughter and I liked how the original showed the mother and father in love with one another and cared for their daughter. The music was too Hollywood-ish and was just typical suspense/horror movie music with some lame "cool" song tagged on at the end. And this version pusses out in the third act by allowing some characters to live, making the audience say, "What the fuck?"
The original film is still more brutal, sad, and disturbing than this Hollywood remake. Sure, this one has more blood and special effects but the realism seems to be missing. The villains in the original played and tortured their victims verbally (Krug demands one of the girls to "piss her pants") and physically (Krug carves his name on one of the girl's chest). But yet the villains had a few moments when they were just regular human beings (although very trailer trashy) and not just stone cold killers.
I will say I didn't hate this. Like I said, some changes in the story worked and aside from the third act, I was never bored with the film. It wasn't bad but it just seems like it's sole purpose in existence was to make money and jump on the remake bandwagon. And by going down that road, the film leads to nowhere.
Anyone who knows me, should already know about my weird and strange love for the original Last House on the Left. As much as it is dated and sometimes downright silly, I always found it strangely disturbing and yet a fast paced horror film with a great soundtrack done by the films main villain, David Hess. Known for not only being Wes Craven's first film, it is known for being one of the first exploitation horror films that showed rape and torture in such graphic detail. In today's standards, it may be considered weak. But I love every bit of that movie. So yeah, when I heard of the remake coming out, I slammed my foot down and refused to pay money to see it. When it got semi-decent reviews I became intrigued and decided to wait for DVD. I have been holding off for awhile and finally I broke down.
The Last House on the Left remake is the story of a family coping with the death of a son/brother. It is summer time so the family decides to go to their cottage in the woods for awhile. The daughter and her carefree friend end up meeting a "family" of escaped convicts who take the gals hostage as the cops are on their tail. When the girls try to escape, the convicts rape and kill them. They take refuge in one of the dead girls homes and when the Mom and Dad find out, they take matter sin their own hands.
I will admit, the remake changed a few things in the storyline that now work: the family dealing with the death of a loved one worked well, the girl's neckless is now a gift from her dead brother and not some hippie peace symbol, the father being a doctor is shown more and put to some use, instead of the car breaking down it is run off the road by the girl's trying to escape. One of the attacks in the house was dirty and realistic. Little things like this worked well.
However, there was more problems I had with some of the changes. The villains look too much like movie stars playing bad guys. They are too good looking with either a mustache or bruise to cover up their good looks. There is no David Hess or Fred Lincoln in this film. The fact that Krug was able to control his junkie son by promising him drugs is now gone and Junior is now just afraid of his dad because he's scary and mean. I never got a feeling the family was very close to the daughter and I liked how the original showed the mother and father in love with one another and cared for their daughter. The music was too Hollywood-ish and was just typical suspense/horror movie music with some lame "cool" song tagged on at the end. And this version pusses out in the third act by allowing some characters to live, making the audience say, "What the fuck?"
The original film is still more brutal, sad, and disturbing than this Hollywood remake. Sure, this one has more blood and special effects but the realism seems to be missing. The villains in the original played and tortured their victims verbally (Krug demands one of the girls to "piss her pants") and physically (Krug carves his name on one of the girl's chest). But yet the villains had a few moments when they were just regular human beings (although very trailer trashy) and not just stone cold killers.
I will say I didn't hate this. Like I said, some changes in the story worked and aside from the third act, I was never bored with the film. It wasn't bad but it just seems like it's sole purpose in existence was to make money and jump on the remake bandwagon. And by going down that road, the film leads to nowhere.
October 4th - BRIDES OF DRACULA (1960)
Sorry this took me so long to post. I couldn't log on to this site for some reason while I was at work to write my review.
I never knew this but Brides of Dracula is actually the sequel to 1958's Horror of Dracula. Horror of Dracula is one of my favorite Dracula films and for me, no one beats Christopher Lee as Dracula. I always believed the second film was Dracula- Prince of Darkness but I was wrong. This is the sequel and what threw me off is that Dracula isn't even in this film!
The bizarre story is about a young student teacher who gets mixed up with an old family curse. Unbeknownst to her, she accidentally frees a young man chained in his room but happens to be a vampire. The town is now attacked by the vampire and it's up to Professor Van Helsing (Peter Cushing, who returns from Horror of Dracula) to stop the vampire. The story centers on the young woman who frees the vampire but then suddenly switches POV once Van Helsing comes into the picture. It's really odd.
The title of the film is also strange to me since there are no brides and there is no Dracula (although a brief reference is made of him) . Minor complaints though because like most Hammer films, the movie is filled with great atmosphere such as bats, castles, and graveyards. Peter Cushing is always good and his charming and kind Van Helsing is always great to watch. The women are beautiful and the direction is decent and shot in a nice wide scope.
If I have any complaints, it would be the thrown together screenplay and the title of the movie. But it's still worth a look. If you have never seen any Hammer films from the 50's, 60's or 70's, you are missing out on some great horror films.
I never knew this but Brides of Dracula is actually the sequel to 1958's Horror of Dracula. Horror of Dracula is one of my favorite Dracula films and for me, no one beats Christopher Lee as Dracula. I always believed the second film was Dracula- Prince of Darkness but I was wrong. This is the sequel and what threw me off is that Dracula isn't even in this film!
The bizarre story is about a young student teacher who gets mixed up with an old family curse. Unbeknownst to her, she accidentally frees a young man chained in his room but happens to be a vampire. The town is now attacked by the vampire and it's up to Professor Van Helsing (Peter Cushing, who returns from Horror of Dracula) to stop the vampire. The story centers on the young woman who frees the vampire but then suddenly switches POV once Van Helsing comes into the picture. It's really odd.
The title of the film is also strange to me since there are no brides and there is no Dracula (although a brief reference is made of him) . Minor complaints though because like most Hammer films, the movie is filled with great atmosphere such as bats, castles, and graveyards. Peter Cushing is always good and his charming and kind Van Helsing is always great to watch. The women are beautiful and the direction is decent and shot in a nice wide scope.
If I have any complaints, it would be the thrown together screenplay and the title of the movie. But it's still worth a look. If you have never seen any Hammer films from the 50's, 60's or 70's, you are missing out on some great horror films.
Oct 3, 2010
October 3rd - DEAD OF NIGHT (1977)
First off, before I begin, I just want to say...GO GIANTS!
There, now that we got that out of the way, lets go on for the 3rd film for this month. This is the 1977 made for television anthology film Dead of Night. From the people who brought us Trilogy of Terror comes another made for TV horror anthology film but this one falls way short. In fact, I found this dull and pointless.
The first story is so forgettable, I forgot what the title of that story is. Ed Begley Jr stars as a college grad who fixes up an old car and gets sucked back in time to change some history around. It's very brief and feels like a bad Twilight Zone episode. Whimsical nonsense.
The second story, There is No Such Thing as Vampires is ok but also very brief. This is a period piece about a family that is being stalked by an unseen vampire...or is it. I actually enjoyed the twist to this but the story is so short, it couldn't build any tension or make me care about any of the characters.
The third story, Bobby, is the story I have heard for years that scared the living shit out of everyone who saw it at the time. A woman performs a satanic ritual in her home to bring back her dead son. Minutes later he appears but is not what he seems. Like the other stories, not much tension or character is built due to such a short time length. I was also annoyed by the child's constant teasing of his mother. I don't see how this was scary or disturbing. I found it annoying.
Dan Curtis who I normally love (Trilogy of Terror, Night Stalker) directed the film and Richard Matheson (writer of several Twilight Zone episodes and author of the scariest book I have ever read, Hell House) wrote the stories. I expected much better. This seemed like it was thrown together quickly, maybe to cash in on Trilogy of Terror. Either way, Dead of Night didn't do much for me.
Giants.
There, now that we got that out of the way, lets go on for the 3rd film for this month. This is the 1977 made for television anthology film Dead of Night. From the people who brought us Trilogy of Terror comes another made for TV horror anthology film but this one falls way short. In fact, I found this dull and pointless.
The first story is so forgettable, I forgot what the title of that story is. Ed Begley Jr stars as a college grad who fixes up an old car and gets sucked back in time to change some history around. It's very brief and feels like a bad Twilight Zone episode. Whimsical nonsense.
The second story, There is No Such Thing as Vampires is ok but also very brief. This is a period piece about a family that is being stalked by an unseen vampire...or is it. I actually enjoyed the twist to this but the story is so short, it couldn't build any tension or make me care about any of the characters.
The third story, Bobby, is the story I have heard for years that scared the living shit out of everyone who saw it at the time. A woman performs a satanic ritual in her home to bring back her dead son. Minutes later he appears but is not what he seems. Like the other stories, not much tension or character is built due to such a short time length. I was also annoyed by the child's constant teasing of his mother. I don't see how this was scary or disturbing. I found it annoying.
Dan Curtis who I normally love (Trilogy of Terror, Night Stalker) directed the film and Richard Matheson (writer of several Twilight Zone episodes and author of the scariest book I have ever read, Hell House) wrote the stories. I expected much better. This seemed like it was thrown together quickly, maybe to cash in on Trilogy of Terror. Either way, Dead of Night didn't do much for me.
Giants.
October 2nd - THEM! (1954)
I have always wanted to see this movie, being a huge fan of giant monster films from the 50's and 60's. And finally I got a chance to see Them and again, I was not disappointed.
The best part of the movie is the creepy and mysterious opening. In New Mexico, police find a little girl wandering the desert in completely shock. They find her home destroyed and her family dead but the weird thing is that her home is destroyed from the inside out. Something in her home got out...and it was pretty big. Some great suspense, very well done cinematography and well acted, the film is playing up nicely. However, when we find out that giant ants are what is causing this due to nuclear atomic tests, we loose that suspense and mystery and it turns into a big bug monster film. Which isn't a bad thing I guess since it is a fun film but the opening was so much better than the rest of the film. I just can't help to think what it could have been.
The acting is good with Edmund Gwenn (Santa in Miracle on 34th Street) as the doctor who knows everything and James Whitmore (Brooks from The Shawshank Redemption) as the police sgt. who is out to stop the ants. Even Leonard Nimoy has a bit part.
According to imdb.com the film was suppose to be shot in color and in 3-D but the budget got cut at the last minute. The opening title card is still in color. The film was a huge hit and Them is now considered one of the best big bug monster films from that time. Not sure if it is my favorite but it certainly is worth a look.
Another good film! I am on a roll so far!
The best part of the movie is the creepy and mysterious opening. In New Mexico, police find a little girl wandering the desert in completely shock. They find her home destroyed and her family dead but the weird thing is that her home is destroyed from the inside out. Something in her home got out...and it was pretty big. Some great suspense, very well done cinematography and well acted, the film is playing up nicely. However, when we find out that giant ants are what is causing this due to nuclear atomic tests, we loose that suspense and mystery and it turns into a big bug monster film. Which isn't a bad thing I guess since it is a fun film but the opening was so much better than the rest of the film. I just can't help to think what it could have been.
The acting is good with Edmund Gwenn (Santa in Miracle on 34th Street) as the doctor who knows everything and James Whitmore (Brooks from The Shawshank Redemption) as the police sgt. who is out to stop the ants. Even Leonard Nimoy has a bit part.
According to imdb.com the film was suppose to be shot in color and in 3-D but the budget got cut at the last minute. The opening title card is still in color. The film was a huge hit and Them is now considered one of the best big bug monster films from that time. Not sure if it is my favorite but it certainly is worth a look.
Another good film! I am on a roll so far!
Oct 2, 2010
October 1st - 13 GHOSTS (1960)
The first film in my month long HORROR FILM A DAY is the William Castle film 13 Ghosts. I have seen this many years ago but remember little so it was as if I saw this for the first time. Being a fan of William Castle films such as House on Haunted Hill and Bug, I was looking forward to this little film and I am happy to say that I started out this month with a fun and yet creepy horror film.
If you have seen the atrocious remake, get it out of your head now. This is very different. Even from the bizarre and creepy opening of all the ghosts coming at you, we know we are in for a fun ride. A palentologist and his family inherit a house from an old uncle who has now passed away. The family is losing their house so of course they are happy to move in. When told that the relative practiced in witchcraft and the paranormal, the family laughs it off and almost right away the shit hits the fan.
One of my favorite moments is a scene with a Ouija board. I have always been fascinated and creeped out by Ouija boards so this scene was my favorite. The sound effects and music here also helped alot. Even though the film is 50 years old, it works in ways that most modern horror films lack...suspense.
One of William Castle's great trademarks was to create a "show" for the audience. He loved to have the moviegoer particiapte with his film and have fun with it. The movie was filmed in "Illusion-O" and a pair of special glasses where needed to see the ghosts. The "ghost viewers" contained a red filter and a blue filter but unlike 3D viewers, both eyes would look through the same color filter. One color would cause the ghostly images to intensify while the other color caused the images to fade. A cheap effects but it got people to attend and 13 Ghosts is now considered one of Castle's more popular films.
The film is not without it's flaws as some of the acting is down right bad and the climax is lacking anything special. But the film is a lot of fun and would make for a great Halloween viewing.
If you have seen the atrocious remake, get it out of your head now. This is very different. Even from the bizarre and creepy opening of all the ghosts coming at you, we know we are in for a fun ride. A palentologist and his family inherit a house from an old uncle who has now passed away. The family is losing their house so of course they are happy to move in. When told that the relative practiced in witchcraft and the paranormal, the family laughs it off and almost right away the shit hits the fan.
One of my favorite moments is a scene with a Ouija board. I have always been fascinated and creeped out by Ouija boards so this scene was my favorite. The sound effects and music here also helped alot. Even though the film is 50 years old, it works in ways that most modern horror films lack...suspense.
One of William Castle's great trademarks was to create a "show" for the audience. He loved to have the moviegoer particiapte with his film and have fun with it. The movie was filmed in "Illusion-O" and a pair of special glasses where needed to see the ghosts. The "ghost viewers" contained a red filter and a blue filter but unlike 3D viewers, both eyes would look through the same color filter. One color would cause the ghostly images to intensify while the other color caused the images to fade. A cheap effects but it got people to attend and 13 Ghosts is now considered one of Castle's more popular films.
The film is not without it's flaws as some of the acting is down right bad and the climax is lacking anything special. But the film is a lot of fun and would make for a great Halloween viewing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)