Author: fenrisfil

Curse Of The Cat People (1944)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Cynical cash in sequels were not an invention of more recent years. They were part of Hollywood since the golden age. Curse Of The Cat People is the sequel to “Cat People” from 1942. Both films were written by DeWitt Bodeen. To Bodeen and producer Val Lewton, this was a lot more than just a cash in. They took a radical direction with the story, much to the chagrin of the studio. This was Robert Wise’s directorial debut, however the original director on the film was Gunther von Fritsch. Gunther was fired for falling too far behind in shooting but approximately half of the movie is his work. Simone Simon, Kent Smith and Jane Randolph return to their roles from the previous film and they are joined by the movies young star Ann Carter.

After the events of “Cat People” Oliver Reed (Smith) has married his former co-worker Alice (Randolph) and moved to Tarrytown, New York. They have a 6 year old daughter called Amy, who is awkward and struggles to make friends. Oliver is concerned that she lets her imagination run away with her instead of socializing. Part of his concern is because he saw what happened to his former wife Irena when she lost her grip on reality. In a strange twist Amy befriends an invisible figure that appears to be the ghost of Irena. She also makes friend with a senile old lady, a former movie star that now thinks her own daughter is an impostor. Oliver tries to bring her daughter to reality but may end up only driving her away from him.

Are Cat People Without Cats, Still People?

Curse of the Cat People is a unique movie (Not bad for something 80 years old). The expectations for this sequel would be for it to be a monster like it’s predecessor. But while the original involved curses and cat people, this has neither. Instead it’s sort of a ghost story. Maybe not even that, since the ambiguity of the story leaves it just as likely the ghost was only ever a figment of a young lonely girls imagination. It is a story that has a bit of sentimental sweetness to it, but is actually quite sad. Not just in the lead girl but also the senile old woman that befriends her while rejecting her own daughter. It is a story about the border between fantasy and reality and how that impacts people. It’s really not a horror film. Yet, it is a direct sequel with three returning characters.

These days people talk like audience expectation as if this is not something that has ever been subverted before and yet here we are. A sequel to a monster movie turned into an emotional character drama with a hint at ghostly activity. It’s no surprise reactions to the film were decidedly mixed with fans of the first film often very disappointed while those that had no particular affection for the first simply enjoyed the film for what it was. Indeed that it wasn’t a horror was probably a bonus for those people. The movie even seems to retcon the events of the previous film, placing it all firmly inside Irena’s head, despite that movie showing the audience her in panther form. The only cat in this sequel at all is the street cat in the opening scene that was awkwardly edited in to the movie at the last minute.

Child Psychology

It seems the only way to really judge this movie is as a stand alone. That said, it was marketed and is still listed as a horror, so I’m not going to give it a complete pass for not having anyone mauled by a big cat. As a character drama Amy is a very compelling character. Eight year old Ann Carter did a great job with her performance. Her career was derailed by polio before she broke through as an adult, but she definitely had talent. You certainly feel her innocence and loneliness. Even as she is accidentally driving a wedge between another daughter and her mother, she is never anything but well meaning. Speaking of which, that story between Barbara and Julia Farren is quite heart breaking in it’s own right. It’s a strange secondary story to Amy’s that shares more with it thematically than anything else.

The themes are the interesting thing here. Because we are talking about psychology, senility, madness and the imagination of children. Ollie Reed has his own journey, perhaps one of forgiveness for his former wife Irena’s madness or to see that kindness and love is a better antidote to a delusion than anger. We reference the madness of Irena as an adult, the senile madness of Julia Farren believe her own daughter is an imposter and the childhood madness of Amy’s imaginary friend. These are all depicted with a supernatural overtone to it, yet none of it really does seem to be. It’s actually quite a clever bit of story telling.

But Is It Even A Horror?

Here we get to the problem. As a horror, this is not good. The only person that dies is an old woman of a heart attack. The only threat to anyone is from their own madness. The ghost is most likely just an imaginary friend and the vast majority of the movie isn’t even trying to present the viewer with any other conclusion. Ambiguity is always a benefit in movies that walk the line like this, but they barely attempted any. Madness can be a strong horror theme, but not in the way it is used here. The only character even portrayed as at all menacing is Barbara. Yet the story doesn’t do anything to make us think she is anything other than a poor abused daughter burden by her mothers senility. She is more sad than scary.

So with that all in mind, I have the dilemma of how to rate the movie. It was certainly a misleading film on the surface, but there is a solid, intelligently made movie underneath. As a horror though, which is ultimately what it was marketed as, it doesn’t work. This is more of a family movie than a horror. My instinct here is to give this a 6/10 and a mild recommendation with the caveat that you need to go in expecting a psychological character drama and not anything even mildly horror related.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

The Sentinel (1977)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Tonight I’m reviewing Michael Winner’s 1977 supernatural horror “The Sentinel” from Universal. The movie stars Cristina Raines as model “Alison Parker”. Support comes from a vast array of movie stars from the past, present and future (For 1977) including Ava Gardner, John Carradine, Christopher Walken and Jeff Goldblum. Richard C. Kratina provides cinematography and Gil Mellé, the music. The movie is based on the novel of the same name by Jeffrey Konvitz. Winner and Konvits adapted the screenplay between them.

Alison Parker is a fashion model with a history of suicide attempts. These date back to an incident where she walked in on her father during an orgie. After moving into an apartment block in Brooklyn she begins to experience strange physical problems. These include fainting spells, insomnia and hearing things. She begins to become agitated by her bizarre neighbours, only to be told that the only other resident there is an elderly reclusive priest. Meanwhile, Alison’s lawyer boyfriend Michael (Chris Sarandon) is being investigated by cops Gatz (Eli Walloch) and Rizzo (Christopher Walken) over the suspicious death of his wife. Alison and Michael attempt to unravel the mystery involving the apartment and the mysterious priest. Ultimately a dark secret will be revealed.

I Am The Way Into The City Of Woe

This is very much a 70’s horror. Edgier and less subtle than the 60’s with more than a little weirdness. It has a pace that starts off slow but builds up more momentum as it goes and then throws everything but the kitchen sink at you for the climax. The movie knows how to unsettle the viewer while keeping them glued to the screen. Michael Winner obviously knows what he is doing, but a lot of this is fairly normal stuff for the era and demonstrates why 70’s horror was so effective. With the Christian/Dante themes I can’t help but compare this to the disappointing “The First Omen” film I reviewed earlier in the month. This demonstrates exactly the kinds of things that film lacked. Specifically, the edginess and the commitment to a religious view point (And associated fears).

That said, this movie clearly takes a lot of influence from Rosemary’s Baby. The way the other “Residence” of her apartment block approach her in a friendly and yet creepy manner and how ultimately they have evil intentions towards her. That is straight out of Polanski’s playbook. Between that and the influences of the various demon/devil related movies of the 1970’s this movie doesn’t feel especially unique or original. But it’s not cliched. Compared to many of the modern takes on this sub-genre, it actually feels relatively fresh. The story itself is straight forward and relies on a slow reveal of information to drag it out. Most of the events in the film don’t really matter that much and several plot threads seem to disappear into the ether.

Abandon All Hope, You Who Enter

Among the many peripheral characters are Christopher Walken and Jeff Goldblum. Both have very small roles, which is a shame but it’s early in their careers. Goldblum plays a director and Walken plays a cop. Of the two Walken comes closest to having some relevancy to the plot, but both threads drop away before the final act. Effectively the police are just there to imply that Alison’s boyfriend Michael may be a murderer. They drift out of the woodwork for the second act and vanish again by the third. Goldblum’s role has even less impact as it’s tied to Alison’s day job as a model, something that barely factors into the story.

The strength of this movie is entirely in the events that happen in the apartment block itself. The introduction to the neighbours, the revelation that they may not be real and the parade of weirdness in the fact act. These elements are what makes this film interesting. It’s not enough to raise it up to a true classic, but it is memorable and unsettling. The pacing is good, but the plot could have been structured better so that all the threads felt worthwhile. This is a solid 6/10. Recommended, but don’t expect to be blown away,

Rating: 6 out of 10.

The Substance (2024)

Posted on by fenrisfil

The Substance is a new body horror movie from French writer/director Coralie Fargeat. It was made for a mere $17.5m by Universal through their “Working Title Films” UK subsidiary. It stars Demi Moore and Margaret Qualley with support from Dennis Quaid. The movie has not had a particularly large release, but has done well for it’s budget. Notably though it has had very positive reviews with many calling it the film of the year. So naturally I had to work this into my October horror reviews. Side note, this is my 100th horror review on the blog!

Moore plays “Elisabeth Sparkle”, a fading star that is about to loose her aerobics show due to her age. After being in a car crash a surgeon slips a USB stick into her pocket with a note saying “This changed my life”. On the stick is an advert for a treatment known as “The Substance” that promises to perform miracles. Specifically to create a better version of you that will then share your life. There are rules though, the most important being that you switch every seven days without fail. Being desperate to rekindle her fame and be loved by the audience once more, Elisabeth agrees. Thus “Sue” (Qualley) is born. The instructions warn “Remember you are one”, but that may be easier said than done.

Every Seven Days Without Fail

This is a film that heavily indulges in itself. Everything is heavily stylized, but each shot hangs on a few moments more than it needs to and the arty stuff is thrown in almost every second. The style is actually good, but the film milks each idea for far too long. This leads to the main problem with the film it is far too long. You just don’t need two hours and twenty one minutes to make a body horror. The story is actually pretty simple and you know where it is going from fairly early on. Dragging out each scene wasn’t really necessary artistically, to tell the story or to enforce the themes.

My other issue with the film is the predictability. Any film that literally lists rules, you know the the direction of the film will be to break every single one of them. It’s just a matter of time (and it’s a long time). The pay off on the last one is pretty impressive though, I’ll give them that. To be fair, body horror tends to be predictable, so this is a minor issue. I did wonder early on if most of the story was meant to be a hallucination after the car crash or even something experienced as Elizabeth died. Neither came to pass, but to be fair also wasn’t ruled out. The truth is this is a film where reality isn’t really important.

You Are The Matrix

The world in which the film takes place doesn’t feel very much like a real world. That’s not a criticism though since this is clearly intentional. But it is a sign of just how much this film is about style and themes. All the characters outside of the main two (who are in fact, one) are shallow shells of characters that don’t feel real. This is because they aren’t important to the story. This is a story about one person and one person alone. One person and two actresses so it’s a good job Demi Moore and Margaret Qualley were up to the task.

To me this seems to all be a metaphor for plastic surgery. More specifically for how it is crutch many Hollywood actresses reach for at a certain age. It’s an unfortunate thing and almost every time they end up looking worse than aging naturally. This movie really looks into this from the perspective of the women that go through it. It is ultimately a tragedy. It’s not an entirely sympathetic one though. It’s also not a film that shies away from the grossness or comedy of a body horror. The former it indulges in throughout, but the latter kicks into gear for the final act. This is an act that wouldn’t be out of place in a Charles Band or Troma horror comedy.

Termination Is Final

This is a good movie, but I’m not sure it warrants the “Best movie of the year” labels it’s been receiving. The ending is more funny than tragic and the movie drags a lot getting there while they show you a few more close ups of peoples teeth or piles of meat. The themes are sort of in your face and the plot is a straight line towards disaster. That is a plot that works, but it’s nothing special. The visuals however are good. The sets, sound design and editing (Length aside) are very impressive. The body horror is sufficiently gross (Which is the entire point) and everything more or less works. So, how do I score this? I think a strong 6/10 is fair. It’s a recommendation, but I do think you need to like body horrors or art movies to enjoy this.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Crimson Peak (2015)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Guillermo Del Toro has become a bit of a tradition for my October review challenge. I reviewed “Cronos” (1993) and Mimic (1997) in previous years. This year I’m checking out “Crimson Peak” from 2015. Del Toro directs this from a script penned by himself and Matthew Robbins. Long time collaborator Dan Lausten provides the cinematography and Fernando Velázquez provides the soundtrack. The movie stars Mia Wasikowska, Jessica Chastain and Tom Hiddleston. This one I’ve been sitting on for a while so I can watch it as part of the October challenge. It’s actually one of Del Toro’s personal favourites, despite the fact it lost money in the box office.

Ghosts Are A Metaphor For The Past

Our movie opens in 1887 and we are introduced to a young Edith Cushing (Wasikowska), who is visited by the ghost of her dead mother. Her mother warns her to beware “Crimson Peak”. Years later and Edith is an aspiring author struggling to get her ghost story published. Publishers are not keen on a woman writing ghost stories it seems, even though Edith insists the Ghosts are just a metaphor for the past. Edith is the daughter wealthy businessman, Carter Cushing (Jim Beaver), one day she is wooed by a dashing young man, Sir Thomas Sharpe (Hiddleston). He and his sister, Lucille (Chastaine) are visiting America from England in the hopes of finding investors for his invention, a digging machine.

Carter is firmly against the relationship, but after he dies under mysterious circumstances Edith ends up moving to the Sharpe estate in England. A foreboding mansion situated atop a red clay mine (Which it has been sinking in to for years). Things are not what they seem though. Edith is becoming ill and keeps seeing ghostly figures around the Mansion. These ghosts scare her at first, but she begins to realise they do not mean her harm and may be trying to warn her. Meanwhile, Dr. Alan McMichael (Charlie Hunnam), a friend of Edith and her Father from back home suspects foul play in Carter’s death and is investigating.

Red Snow At The Crimson Peak

Since this is a Guillermo Del Torro movie it is no surprise it is a beautiful film to look at and it really is end to end with this. From the snow storms, to the old mansion (Inside and Out) the use of the red clay, the machinery, the look of the ghosts, it all looks great. More impressively though it is all pretty original looking. I mean, I’ve seen a million creepy old mansions, but Del Torro makes it feel new and unique. The same for the ghosts. The plot on the other hand is as old as the gothic romance genre in general. I’ve definitely seem this plot before, or one very similar. The only difference here being the inclusion of the ghosts. However, these ghosts tend to be on the periphery of the plot. They add an extra layer to the film, sort of like the creatures of “Pan’s Labyrinth” Despite how they look, they are not malicious threats and for the most part can only been seen by Edith.

But this is what makes Del Torro special. He is like a cook that takes something like beans on toasts and throws a little twist to it that makes it a culinary delight. Without the ghostly elements and the clever visuals this would be almost the default gothic romance. Nothing to see here at all. But he adds a twist and it becomes something more. Of course this is also a film with a fairly small main cast. Predominantly three characters and so a lot of the weight of the film falls on these three. Luckily for the film these are Tom Hiddleston, Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska. All very capable actors. None of them blew me away, but they all did well.

Conclusion

Your mileage may vary with this movie. A lot really depends on how much you like gothic romance. For me, I have some affection for the gothic romance films of the 1940’s, such as “Rebecca” (1940) and “The Spiral Staircase” (1946). They aren’t my favourites, but I like them. If those are among your favourites however, this may be an all time classic for you. If not, well, you will still enjoy the visuals but probably be quite bored. Personally, I felt the plot was a little too generic and since the film is quite slow paced it did drag in places. But, even when it did, I was still able to enjoy what was on screen. For me, this is a strong 6.5/10.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

My Bloody Valentine (1981)

Posted on by fenrisfil

The 1980’s was the era of the slasher film. They didn’t originate there, but the stars aligned in favour of the horror sub genre in that decade. First of all special effects were finally able to provide impressive looking gore and blood. Secondly, as the decade went on the VHS market gave a massive boost to low budget movies. Finally, there was a big push for censorship and outrage over these films and that of course made teenagers determined to watch them! But before everything became somewhat cliched, there were a handful of movies that truly defined the genre. One such movie was “My Bloody Valentine” from 1981. A cult hit in it’s day that inspired the band with the same name and influenced many slashers that followed.

My Bloody Valentine is directed by George Mihalka and written by Stephen Miller and John Beaird. The movie stars Paul Kelman and “T.J.” a young man returning to the town of Valentine Bluffs after a period away. He is determined to win back his old girlfriend “Sarah” (Lori Hallier) from his former friend “Axel” (Neil Affleck). All the young men in this town work in the local mine (Owned by T.J’s father. Despite the name, the town hasn’t celebrated Valentines day since a massacre occurred on that day many years ago. Local legend is that should they do so the killer will return. Despite that plans are afoot to hold the first Valentines dance for 20 years. However, it seems “The Miner” isn’t going to let that happen. Police Chief Newby (Don Francks) is tasked with finding the killer before it is too late.

Heart of Coal

Slasher films from the 80’s are two-for-a-penny. That makes it all the more harder to stand out. So the first thing to note here is that the makers of this film found two unique elements for the setting. The first is Valentines Day and the second is the use of a mine. The former provides the killer with his calling cards (Hearts in chocolate boxes) and the later with the killers look (A miner outfit complete with mask). Someone would have made a valentines horror eventually, but they got there first and that is what matters. It’s not just the concept that makes an 80’s slasher stand out from the crowd though. You need some creative gore and My Bloody Valentine provides plenty. Scenes include such things as a body found in the tumble dryer of a laundromat.

The plot isn’t the smartest horror story you’ll ever come across, but it does provide at least one swerve. The rest is essentially the standard slasher affair. Early on we are given the old legend of a killer out for revenge due to some mis-deed. The killer is supposedly out of the picture, but then the killing starts. In some ways the movie reminds me of proto-slasher “The Town That Dreaded Sundown” (1976), which was primarily based around the night of the school prom. The big difference is this movie can take full advantage of the advancements in gore effects that came with the the turn of the 1980’s. Following quickly on the heels of Friday The 13th. The truth is you probably couldn’t have made this movie two years earlier.

End Of The Line

Acting quality isn’t the most important thing in a slasher, but most of the cast here do a reasonable job. The cast is a little more mature than most slashers, young adults instead of straight teens. However, that only contrasts it with later slashers, in 1981 the sub-genre was still forming. I wonder if in reality this film isn’t that original, it’s just it was following an older set of tropes than later slashers. When the movie first came out, a solid 9 minutes of gore was removed to avoid the dreaded “X” rating. Three minutes of those nine were later restored, but we can only speculate on the rest.

Overall, this is a solid slasher that has managed to maintain comparative originality in a saturated genre. The plot is fairly generic, but the gimmicks work well and the movie is well executed and memorable. This is just about worthy of a 6.5/10. A pretty high score for a slasher and well worth checking out if you are a fan of the genre.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Opera (1987)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For tonight’s review I’m returning to the world of Italian Giallo horror. This time to perhaps it’s greatest master Dario Argento and what is sometimes called his “Final masterpiece”. It was his most expensive film to date and perhaps his most ambitious. Ronnie Taylor provides the Cinematography and Brian Eno the soundtrack. The movie stars Cristina Marsillach, Ian Charleson and Urbano Barberini. If you’ve seen my previous Giallo reviews you’ll know the deal with Italian dubbing. Basically there is no fighting it, no matter how much you prefer subtitles. Even the Italian language versions are dubbed. Indeed Charleson would have been speaking in English on set (So on the English dub his lips actually do sync).

While not technically an adaptation of Phantom Of The Opera, the movie, this movie is heavily influenced by it. This is the story of Betty, a young Opera singer thrust into the limelight after an accident injures the lead in a production of Verdi’s Macbeth. She is stalked and abused by an deranged fan determined to kill anyone close to her so he can have her for himself. More than that though, he will force her to watch him committing these murders. But there is more to this stalker that just a fan, he has been in Betty’s nightmares ever since she was a child.

The Raven Himself Is Hoarse

Some movies are difficult to fit a synopsis into one paragraph. Not the case here. The premise is very simple on the surface and yet the film itself makes it feel much more complicated. This is because frankly this film is a bit of a mess. The individual parts are actually very good, but they are put together in ways that don’t always compliment each other. The most obvious example here is the soundtrack. Obviously the movie features a lot of Opera, but it also has soundtrack composed by experimental musician Brian Eno. These two would be fine, but then almost as a theme tune for the psychopath the movie throws in a number of heavy metal songs by the band “Gow”. Metal and horror can work together for sure, but mixed with the rest it’s just a little strange.

The story has a similar situation. The main plot is straight forward, but there are bits and pieces on the peripheral that just seem thrown in. When Betty is rescued by a young girl from her apartment block crawling through the old air conditioning vents it feels incredibly random. It feels like a character that should have been more involved earlier, but wasn’t. Similarly with Betty’s agent, she is called in as someone Betty obviously trusts and thinks can help her with her incredible situation and yet we don’t really get any kind of feeling of that relationship. Betty’s childhood dreams have a big reveal involving her mother and her relationship with the killer. This turns out to be very much a Lady Macbeth reference (The character Bety is playing in the Opera). That’s a neat idea, but it barely seems to be actually explored in the movie.

Of Direst Cruelty Make Thick My Blood

This is Dario Argento, so the truth is we aren’t tuning in for the plot. We’re tuning in because he is a master of visual horror. So the question is, does the film live up to those standards? Absolutely. It’s actually possibly his most impressive film visually (Though it’s been a while since I’ve watched the “Three Mothers Trilogy”). The use of the ravens are pretty unique, especially when we get the ravens-eye-view shots and their use in the plot is pretty cool. The Opera house setting works well too. The most memorable visuals though are the murders. The idea of forcing his victim to watch with the razor blades on her eyes is terrifying, though it’s only done twice in the film. The bullet through the spy hole in the door is a great scene too. It was predictable, but done so well that didn’t matter.

Even though I criticized the disjointed nature of the story, the actual elements are not bad in themselves. What I think was the issue is Argento had too many ideas and tried to squeeze them in. This took him years to get the script to a filmable place. Apparently earlier drafts were far too long and some of the scenes were so graphic that they would only be able to release the film in Japan. That was according to Argento himself. It’s not that he had bad ideas, he just had too many of them and ones that he just couldn’t get away with. I particularly like the poetic irony of Betty’s mother being a Lady Macbeth like character. Though a twisted, psychotic one (Rather than encouraging killing out of ambition).

Out, Damned Spot

Overall, this is a good horror that just feels a little weird in places. Dario Argento fans won’t care though. It delivers on all the things you expect from the writer/director. Those less accustomed to the director and giallo in general may find the movie a little too weird or possible even a little too bloody. Modern audiences likely won’t find the latter, but will find it weird especially if they aren’t used to the Italian dubbing style. However, if you’ve seen other Argento movies, I feel confident you’ll enjoy this. I give it a very strong 6.5/10 and a recommendation.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Longlegs (2024)

Posted on by fenrisfil

It’s Nick Cage time! Nick has been killing it on the indie and B-Movie scene for the last few years making a mixture of art, comedy and horror (Often at once) and clearly having fun with it. He’s been prolific too, you can pretty much count on 2-3 new Nick Cage films every year and they’ll all have something positive about them. Part of this has been a run of good horror movies. Everything from the crazy “Mandy” (2018), the solid Lovecraft piece “The Color Out Of Space” (2019), fun movies like “Willy’s Wonderland” (2021) and “Renfield” (2023) and recently the dark and underrated “Arcadian” (2024). But “Longlegs” is a movie that had hype long before anyone realized Cage would be in a central role. A number of cryptic trailers certainly helped put the movie on a lot of peoples radar, including myself.

Something Wicked This Way Comes

Longlegs is written and directed by Osgood Perkins. The directors previous feature movie “Gretel and Hansel” was praised for the cinematography and criticised the script. However, since neither the writers nor cinematographer from that movie are involved here that leaves Perkins somewhat of a wild card. The movie stars Maika Monroe as “Agent Lee Harker” a young FBI agent with a somewhat psychic talent and a mysterious dark past which she can’t quite remember. Nicholas Cage plays creepy occultist villain “Longlegs”. Blair Underwood, Alicia Witt and Michelle Choi-Lee fill out the rest of the key cast.

Agent Harker is recruited to a special task force trying to solve the “Longlegs” murders. The murders are unique in that the families all seem to have been murder/suicide situations, but are tied together by cryptic notes left at each scene in the same handwriting and the date of birth of each of the families daughter. Harker immediately is able to make progress on the case but as she does she begins to realize things are a lot more personal to her and her mother than she could ever have guessed.

Atmosphere

The film has a good atmosphere. That is the big selling point. The story breaks down a little bit at the ending, and has some issues throughout but is serviceable. Nick Cage finds another character that allows him to make the most of his skills at playing the unhinged. This time though he pushes for more unsettling than comedic and mostly achieve that. Perkins does a good job of showing only as much of Cage as needed. This keeps the mystery and makes sure that the performance from cage doesn’t cross into “Not the bees!” territory. Maika Monroe’s character on the other hand drifts through the entire film like it’s a fever dream. This is entirely intentional and while it doesn’t ask a lot of the actress she pulls it off well. Alicia Witt is a pleasant surprise here too and as Agent Harkers mother Ruth.

The plot certainly has a lot of interesting elements but it ends up somewhat cluttered. . Because of the dream like state that Agent Harker is in throughout the movie it’s hard to get any kind of emotional attachment to the character. She never actually does any detective work. Instead, all the solutions just magically come to her. It’s fairly clear early on (Perhaps from the start), what the Gotcha will be. When it happens, Harker’s reaction to it remains muted due to her continuing dream like state. It’s not quite the emotional pay off it should be. Her mother has an important roll, but we have no reason to care about her. This is largely because she isn’t introduced properly until half way through the movie.

Final Fate

The movie does spend some time humanizing Agent Carter, though Blair Underwood seems to be mostly phoning it in. It’s also done for somewhat obvious reasons, yet isn’t really effective. When these events pay off I was spending most of my time shouting at the screen for Agent Harker to do the obvious thing and stop standing around drooling instead of caring about what was happening. The ending left me somewhat unsatisfied, where as it should have left me feeling unsettled. I think part of this are that too many elements are introduced to this puzzle late on. The movie should have pushed a feeling of inevitable doom hard from the start.

The ingredients are here for a great movie, but the end result doesn’t quite live up to its potential. It is however a good step forward for Perkins as a director and I hope he builds on this in the future. Overall, while not entirely working the movie scores points for atmosphere and for Nick Cage’s performance. This is a 6/10. If you like atmospheric horror or Nicholas Cage being goofy, it is a recommendation. On the other hand, if you like deals with the devil and big gotcha moments in an atmospheric horror check out the vastly superior Angel Heart instead.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Werewolf of London (1935)

Posted on by fenrisfil

No October Review Challenge can be complete without at least one classic Universal monster movie. This time around I’m bringing you the first feature length werewolf movie “Werewolf of London”. While “The Wolf Man” (1941) was far more iconic, and added silver bullets to the lore, it is this movie that really defined the movie version of the werewolf. Specifically the impact of the full moon and the idea of a bite transmitting the affliction. These may not have been invented for the movie, but they became the standard because of it. Almost every werewolf movie that followed would use that lore (Most ancient werewolf tales featured neither of these tropes). Ironically, when a movie like “The Company of Wolves” (1984) goes for a more authentic take on the creatures, it feels like a novelty.

Werewolf of London is directed by Stuart Walker and features creature effects by Jack Pierce (The Man behind the iconic look of Universal’s Frankenstein’s Monster). Henry Hull stars as “Wilfred Glendon”, a world-renowned botanist who has just returned from a journey to Tibet to get an incredibly rare plant. On his journey he was attacked and bitten by a strange creature. However he survive the attack and succeeded in bringing the plant back to England. It seems however that was a werewolf and the curse has now been passed on to Glendon. Only the flowers of this rare plant can help stave off his transformations. But the plant doesn’t seem to want to flower and he has a rival for it’s effects, the wolf that bit him in the first place!

Of Wolf And Man

The first thing to note here is a bit of trivia in regards to the werewolf design. Originally the werewolf was designed to be more “bear” like and then something closer to what was eventually done for The Wolf Man. Finally they arrived at the minimalist design we see in the movie. The reason for this was simply that the script called for characters to recognise who the werewolf was. Henry Hull felt the heavier makeup jobs would make this seem unrealistic. The end result provided werewolf fangs and ears but not a lot else. Probably the most notable feature is the widows peak, which was later copied for Eddie Munster (Likely for simplicity rather than favoring this movie over The Wolf Man).

Now, that said, the look actually does work for the context of the movie. Unlike in The Wolf Man, there isn’t the issue of a werewolf appearing as a full on wolf and then it’s victim only turning into a hairy humanoid. This is at least consistent. What is interesting too is the werewolf howl is actually a combination between the actors voice and a real timber wolf’s howl. This, honestly, didn’t work so well. This is why sound design and Foley is such an art in movies. Going down the obvious route rarely provides the results that works for the audience. Of course these effects from 90 years ago have aged and that does impact watching the film in 2024. Once you’ve seen movies like American Werewolf and The Howling it is hard to go back and watch these old school wolf men.

Universal Appeal

The film provides a short, simple story somewhat similar to the plot later used for The Wolf Man. The difference is this version is less mystical and features a treatment, if not a cure, for the affliction. So in a way it is more complex than the more famous film that would follow. The truth is however this is really just an excuse to get the werewolves into the story. The later films simplified that further by making the initial attack more random in nature. This film, like those that follow is really more about how the victim deals with the affliction. What made The Wolf Man work so well was that it really emphasized the tragedy of the situation. Glendon, by contrast isn’t particularly likable at the best of times. We see the tragedy, but we don’t really feel it.

Visually the movie has all the charms you’d expect from a universal horror. A good use of light and shadows and some nice looking sets. The film shows Glendon’s transformation in stages by having the actor walk behind the scenery. Thus hiding his face and as he emerges the next stage of the makeup becomes visible. This is likely done because of the limitations of effects in the thirties. Yet it actually aged surprisingly well, partially aided by the lighter make up job. What has aged a little is the music. In 1935, movie scores were still relatively new and while the music is not bad, it is somewhat intrusive and distracting in places. It’s notable, but it has at least aged better than the pre-Kong Universal horrors like Frankenstein and Dracula (Which featured very little music and none of it original).

Conclusion

This movie is an important part of horror movie history. It was the first feature length werewolf movie. It gave us the trope of turning to a wolf at the full moon and gaining the curse from being bitten. The minimalist approach to the make up influenced the werewolf make up in “Wolf” (1994) the TV series “Penny Dreadful” and of course for Eddie Munster. The basic plot (Botany aside) has been revisited in almost every werewolf movie that followed. However, compared to all of those other movies this film is lacking. A lot of the film feels comedic (Probably intentional) and the lead isn’t likable enough to really feel the tragedy of the situation. This movie is a starting point. An outline for werewolf stories to come, but without the detail filled in. As a result it more a curiosity than a recommendation. 5.5/10

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Child’s Play 3 (1991)

Posted on by fenrisfil

I wasn’t a huge fan of Chucky back in the day. However, the possess doll has proven himself more than able to stand the test of time. Indeed Chucky is still popular and in recent years had both a reboot and a TV series. Reviews of the former was poor and the latter mixed. But still, Chucky is obviously around to stay. SIn recent years I have re-watched the first two movies and gained a new appreciation for the character. Those were the only Child’s Play movies I had ever seen up until now. Part of that was because the third movie had poor reviews and it’s worth noting only one of the movies has gained a lower score on IMDB (Seed of Chucky). So I wasn’t expecting greatness, but perhaps I would be surprised. After all, movie quality isn’t what it used to be and what was rated badly back then may not be rated so low now.

The movie is directed by Jack Bender from a Don Mancini Script. We pick up eight years after Chucky (Voiced again by Brad Dourif) was defeat in the previous movie. After years out of the market, the Good Boy factory is opened up again. While clearing out the debris a drop of Chucky’s blood falls into the plastic mixing vat and thus when the first new doll comes off the line, Chucky’s soul is transferred into it. Chucky wastes little time hunting after his old nemesis Andry (Now played by Justin Whalin) and mails himself to his new address, a military school. In a twist of events, Chucky ends up being unpackaged by a young boy at the military school, Tyler (Jeremy Sylvers). Chucky realizes he can steal this kids soul instead. It’s down to Andy to try and stop him.

Hide The Soul

Child’s Play 3 is an attempt to move the franchise on from the structure of the first two movies, but it fails to really achieve this. Andy is now a teenager and that was a sensible move. The switch to a military base provides a lot of fresh opportunities too. However, Chucky is now trying to switch souls with a different little boy and that means we’re largely still repeating the first two films. This is largely the trend for this film, ideas that are not bad but are not really developed. Instead everything just gets thrown out there. This is not a long movie and the pace is pretty quick. For a slasher movie that’s not the worst idea, but it doesn’t hurt to slow things down a little now and then and get to know the characters.

While the film does feel rushed, it actually does achieve everything it needed to. We get a basic grip on all the characters, they all feel somewhat two dimensional and broad character archetypes but it’s a functional knowledge. The kills are fairly unique and Chucky provides a few humorous moments on the way. Despite that there is nothing really here that stands out as particularly memorable. Outside of Brad Dourif, the cast are pretty average. Brad of course is returning here for his third movie as Chucky and is very comfortable in the role. The cinematography has it’s moments but again, nothing stands out. The musical score is actually pretty good and I liked the frantic feel of it.

Conclusion

While this third installment in the franchise is somewhat by-the-numbers and rushed, it manages to hit all the vital notes to make the film work. The end result is a solid, but not outstanding slasher that doesn’t overstay it’s welcome. Ultimately it is exactly the kind of film you’d expect from the third installment from a horror franchise. This is a strong 5.5/10. Fans of the first two movies will probably enjoy it.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

In A Violent Nature (2024)

Posted on by fenrisfil

“In A Violent Nature” is a 2024 slasher film with a twist. The movie takes the killer perspective idea (Used so effectively in the intro of “Halloween” (1978)). The movie is written and directed by Chris Nash and is his feature length debut. Chris previous made short films including one entry for “ABC’s of Death 2”. Ry Barrett plays the killer “Johnny” and Andrea Pavlovic plays final girl “Kris”. The story begins with a group of teenagers taking a necklace they find hanging on the remains of a fire tower in the woods. This wakes up long dead killer Johnny who sets out to recover his necklace.

As the story progresses and Johnny starts to kill everyone in his way as he searches for his necklace we gradually learn the killers backstory. As a child he was tricked up to the fire tower where someone scared him and he fell to his death. Later Johnny’s father confronted the killers and dies in the ensuing brawl. The local folk law is that the vengeful spirit of Johnny has been responsible for two killing sprees decades apart. Eventually Johnny narrows his sights on a young woman called Kris and her boyfriend Colt (Cameron Love) who desperately attempt to fight back.

Not Every Idea Is A Good One

This is an attempt to bring some art and perhaps originality to the slasher sub-genre and I applaud the attempt, but for most part the art detract from the atmosphere. Since we are following the silent killer and not the victims, we don’t really get to know any of the characters. I didn’t find myself caring at all about any of them, including the killer. They are all about as generic as slasher film characters come. Some of the scenes are approached in interesting ways but none of this is consistent. We switch from observing a murder quietly from a distance in a detached way, to a horror effects guys wet dream a few minutes later. The ending even abandons the killers perspective gimmick, making it feel tacked on from another film.

While conceptually interesting, in practice this is a movie that falls flat. It feels like the writers just threw together every idea they thought was “Cool”. Then packed it with a vague Jason Voorheese knockoff story. As a result, some of the scenes in isolation are pretty cool (For various reasons). As a full movie however, it’s hard to really feel much of anything for it. While not a complete disaster it is a disappointment. “Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon” (2006), did the killers perspective better admittedly in a more meta and dark comedy way. This was more like someone watched the opening of “Halloween” (1978) and wanted that to be the entire movie. Had John Carpenter done that, I very much doubt we’d still be talking about that movie 46 years later. This is a narrow 5.5/10. It has some merit, but basically one to skip.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.