Tag: October Challenge

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.

The Resurrected (1991)

Posted on by fenrisfil

The Resurrected is based on the H.P. Lovecraft story “The Case of Charles Dexter Ward“. It is directed by Dan O’Bannon and written by Brent Friedman. The pair had been independently working on adaptations to the story for years before their eventual team up. The Lovecraft story is sort of an unusual one in that the author himself didn’t like it and refused to release it during his lifetime. However, it was printed posthumously and is regard by some as among his finest work. Lovecraft usually works best as an inspiration rather than directly adapting his work and as a result there are few examples of successful. Usually those that were successful (Such as “The Re-Animator”), barely resemble the source material. Lovecraft it turns out is hard to adapt faithfully. But here it is attempted.

The story follows detective John March (John Terry), who has been hired by Claire Ward (Jane Sibbett) to investigate her the increasingly bizarre activities of her husband Charles (Chris Sarandon). Claire reveals the catalyst for this behaviour seems to be the sudden uncovering of his family history and their visitation to an abandoned ancestral farmhouse near Pawtuxet. In the farmhouse Charles found a painting of a man called Joseph Curwen who bares an uncanny resemblance to Charles. John’s investigation reveals that there may be something unnatural going on, perhaps something supernatural.

Comparisons

This movie is based on the same Lovecraft story as Roger Corman’s “The Haunted Palace” (1963). Since I’ve reviewed both I may as well compare. First thing to note is that this is a more faithful adaptation. Not a surprise given Corman marketed his version as an Edgar Allan Poe story (The only thing Poe in the story was the title). However, low budget horror is Corman’s specialty and his movie had the benefit of Vincent Price as the antagonist. As a result it still managed a 6/10 from me. Not earth shattering but solid. O’Bannon’s version is more faithful and certainly has the better effects. Dan is no slouch when it comes to gory visuals as he demonstrated with his brilliant “Return of the Living Dead” in 1985. Now these have aged in the 33 years since release, but for the budget and era they were great.

It’s important to note when it comes to Dan O’Bannon is that while he was fine as a director his real claims to fame comes from his writing. His biggest credit being on the sci-fi horror masterpiece “Alien” (1979). So the fact this story was written by Friedman and not O’Bannon leaves me wondering what could have been had O’Bannon had completely creative control. This is especially true given the studio had the final cut here. That said Friedman’s approach was to basically make as few changes from the source material as possible, so not a terrible idea. The movies opening is not especially strong, but things do pick up after. The gradual unraveling of the mystery is played out well and as we reach the final act O’Bannon breaks out the effects in a big way. The ending though is a little disappointing, but is at least visually memorable.

Final Notes

Where this loses points to Corman’s version is with the acting. Chris Sarandon is excellent but the rest of the cast are average at best. The cinematography is somewhat lackluster too. When we’re not seeing something monstrous, we’re not seeing much at all. The movie definitely feels made for video. The plot though is solid and works better than the simplified Corman version. The ending switches out the heroic save of the damsel in distress for a much darker confrontation. It may lack the excitement but it fits the tone of the story. Overall this just about warrants a 6/10. Not the best horror, but a decent one that remains very faithful to it’s Lovecraft roots. It’s narrow, but this is the better version of the story.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Blood and Black Lace (1964)

Posted on by fenrisfil

No October Horror Challenge would be complete without at least one stop over to the world of Giallo, Italian horror. For tonight’s movie I’m watching a movie from one of the legends of the golden age of Italian Horror Mario Bava. I’ve only seen one of his movies before (Black Sunday), which is probably my loss. That movie was in black and white, so this is my first colour Mario Bava horror. This has been on my list for a long time, so I’m looking forward to it. Ubaldo Terzano is the movies cinematographer. Carlo Rustichelli provides the score. The movie stars Cameron Mitchell, Eva Bartok, Thomas Reiner, Claude Dantes and Dante Di Paolo.

Set at a classy fashion house, Blood and Black Lace tells the story of a murder mystery that evolves into a killing spree. The catalyst is the murder of model “Isabella” (Francesca Ungaro) by someone in a white, featureless mask, a black fedora and a trenchcoat. It’s not so much the murder itself, but rather that the next day someone publicly discovers Isabella’s secret diary. It’s clear the diary could lead to the killer, but it seems everyone has their eye on it and their own concerns. It seems this won’t stop at a single murder. Police investigator “Silvestri” (Thomas Reiner) is on the case and everyone appears to be a suspect.

Every Frame A Painting

The most important thing to note about this movie is it looks fantastic. The use of both colour and contrast make this a piece of art in it’s own right. Ubaldo Terzano’s cinematography is fantastic, with a lot of truly original touches that felt fresh even though I was watching a 60 year old movie. The use of colour was a feast for the eyes. This movie along with “Peeping Tom” showed that those more aggressive tones of 60’s cinema actually could be used incredibly effectively for a horror film. That also means they do still come off as quite original since the approach to colour has changed so much since that period. Modern colour is realistic, but this was like a painting.

Italian Horror always had a tradition of style over substance and this is no exception in its priorities. However both are of a higher standard than the average Giallo film. The plot here is a murder mystery and it’s a slightly above average one. It is though definitely the weakest aspect of the movie. With less graphic kill scenes this wouldn’t even really be a horror. Those scenes are in the movie though and they are brutal for the period. It even had the Italian tradition of an eye poking, but done in a way that the gore was merely implied. Given the limitation of 1964 effects that is for the best (And a relief to me, I’m not a big fan of eyeball gore). Brutality aside, the murder scenes are the most artistically filmed of the lot. They are each a work of art in their own right.

Sound And Vision

Acting wise, the only stand out for me was Eva Bartok as Countess Cristiana Cuomo. The rest were fine, but forgettable. The soundtrack by Carlo Rustichelli is also quite notable. It reminded me a lot of Henry Mancini’s 1962 work on Experiment In Terror. Like a lot of Italian horror soundtracks, it is perhaps not the most fitting the mood. Instead, it is something you could listen to by itself. In this instance it does enhance the sensory feast this movie provides, but does little to help the plot or characters.

The script and acting are pretty average here. This isn’t a film that wins you over with the story or personalities. Instead it’s the audio/visual spectacle. The cinematography and use of contrast and colour especially raise this up. The murder scenes are exceptional and still feel original many years later. This is worthy of a 7.5/10 and a strong recommendation and a must see for Giallo horror fans.

Rating: 7.5 out of 10.

The Initiation (1984)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Initiations to a sorority crop up relatively frequently in horror, especially in the 80’s. This one goes straight for the obvious with the title “The Initiation”. The movie is mostly directed by Larry Stewart. The original director, Peter Crane was fired a few days into filming but some of his footage remains. Charles Pratt Jr. provides the script. The movie stars a young Daphne Zuniga as “Kelly Fairchild” one of the aspiring pledges for a sorority. Daphne would most famously appear in “Spaceballs”: The Movie” (1987)” as “Princess Vespa”.As is usually the case for this kind of horror, the head of the sorority has a grudge against our lead and so wants to make their initiation especially unpleasant.

Kelly has plenty of her own issues however since she is plagued by a recurring nightmare. In the nightmare she stabs her father with a knife and then a man is set on fire in front of her. She decides to investigate this with the help of an older student, “Peter” (James Read) that is working on his PhD and is specializing in the study of dreams. The answer to the puzzle seems to be related to a series of murders that has started to happen around town, apparently at the hands of a partially burned man. All threads will link up as the pledges attempt their initiation in the department store.

Sorority Slaughter Shenanigans

Despite the title, the story doesn’t really revolve around the initiation until the final act. It’s a bit like “Jason Takes Manhattan” in that regard. It’s also worth noting the initiation plot is virtually the same as in “One Dark Night”, only intimidating for the girls. Here the setting is a department store and the pranksters trying to scare them are totally ineffective. Not that it matters when there is a psycho hanging out there as well and that’s where the two stories diverge. It’s similar setup but very different movies. The focus is really more on Kelly and her dark past, along with building to a big twist. The twist here while somewhat predictable isn’t embarrassingly so. So it does work.

One thing this has over One Dark Night is that these characters are a little more varied and relatable. That’s not to say they are particularly deep. Instead they are very much college kid stereotypes, but there is enough there to actually care when they die. The acting quality however varies a lot across the board. Daphne Zuniga is the stand out and it’s no surprise she found her way on to Mel Brooks radar for Spaceballs. Her performance is great as the lead and also (spoilers) in her second role. Most of the main cast are passable too, but as you reach the smaller roles the quality drops off. Notably Peter’s colleague in the dream clinic Heidi has a few lines that really dropped me out of the movie.

Conclusion

Overall, I found this a pretty reasonable horror. It is generally fun, with a touch of that college kid comedy humour in places (Porky’s, American Pie, etc). The kills are relatively creative, the characters aren’t horrible and there is a proper story to it. There’s nothing exception here though, so it doesn’t warrant a high score. The movie lands a 5.5/10, held back from a six by those spots of bad acting. Still worth checking out though, especially if you like seeing frat boys/girls killed in slashers films.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

The Limehouse Golem (2016)

Posted on by fenrisfil

The Limehouse Golem is based on the novel “Dan Leno and the Limehouse Golem” by Peter Akroyd. The movie is directed by Juan Carlos Medina and scripted by Jane Goldman. Bill Nighy stars as inspector “John Kildare”, who is tasked with solving the case of the serial killer known as “The Limehouse Golem”. His investigation leads him to a handful of suspects, including Dan Leno, a famous music hall performer, and the recently deceased John Cree. His wife, Lizzie Kree (Olivia Cooke), a former performer, is on trial for his murder. As Kildare uncovers clues, he becomes increasingly obsessed with proving Lizzie’s innocence.

Period Drama

This plays out like a murder mystery and not a horror film. As such doesn’t really offer a sense of terror and foreboding. Most of the murders are re-imagined re-enactment’s of past killings with the various suspects filling in for the killer while a narrator (Usually the suspect) reads journal entries. The mystery itself is rather silly. Given most of the suspects are real life historical characters and this is a fictional murder there wasn’t really any possibility of those characters being the Golem. Clearly these people are only suspects so that they can be in the story. This is Especially true of Karl Marx, who is dismissed as a suspect so quickly his inclusion served no purpose except to excite Marxist viewers. The final swerve to a non-suspect is all too predictable. The whole investigation is dry and lacking in any real suspense.

This in theory could be countered by the character drama but the truth is very few of the characters are actually that interesting. Really just Dan Leno who is portrayed rather well by Douglas Booth. The rest of the cast though do little to raise their characters. Bill Nighy is a decent actor but he’s not the British top tier (Michael Caine/Anthony Hopkins level), he’s not an actor that can raise an average script to greatness. He does fine, but given this is basically a whodunnit, the lead detective needs to be more than just “Fine”. The other actors land around the average mark. All that leaves is the period drama aspect and in this regard it does pretty well, but I need a bit more than this to like a movie.

The Final Curtain

The whole experience feels somewhat shallow. Many decisions in the set up just get in the way of the telling of the story. The story utilizes famous historical characters to try and give the story more gravitas than the plot itself generates. Yet this decision makes the investigation largely pointless. Even the decision to make Kildare gay works against the movie. He spends most of the film desperately trying to protect and being manipulated by a woman. The relationship didn’t really need a sexual attraction. However it would have made a lot of sense and added to the characters journey. Instead his sexuality is thrown around in dialogue but ultimately impacts nothing. The final moments of the story where Kildare must decide Lizzie’s fate would have conveyed very different emotions with that simple change. Instead it is a moment of a man realising his own incompetence. But that’s okay, he gets a promotion anyway.

The icing on the cake is that we are told this is the big killer that came before Jack the Ripper and this too never factors into the story. That is nothing but a marketing line to convince the viewer the killer and by extension the movie is terrifying. It needs this trick because neither is actually true. But the actual result is that the story always falls into the shadow of the Ripper and is found wanting. This is a simple and predictable whodunnit masquerading as a horror story. It is more focused on its themes than characters or plot and is by and large a waste of time unless you are really into period dramas. For a better Victorian horror, dig up “From Hell” (2001) and watch that again instead. 4/10

Rating: 4 out of 10.

Black Roses (1988)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Heavy Metal Horror, “Black Roses” is directed by John Fasano. At this point in his career he was a relative unknown. Later he would gain some solid writing credits and become a popular Hollywood script doctor. Back in 1988 he had only one directing credit to his name. That was for another Heavy Metal themed horror called “Rock ‘n’ Roll Nightmare” (1987). Writing credits for this one went to Cindy Cirile (John’s now ex-wife). John was obviously a metal head and by the late 80’s that’s no surprise. This was the era where metal was mainstream. So heavy metal themed horror was inevitable and there are many examples of it throughout the 80’s.

Heavy Metal was also highly controversial in the 80’s. It was linked with the Satanic Panic and Court cases had been brought against the likes of Judas Priest and Ozzy Osbourne for allegedly encouraging suicides. In our story the band “The Black Roses” want to open their first US tour with an appearance in the small town of Mill Basin. Despite local opposition the band play a series of gigs, but they have a secret. The band actually are demons here to corrupt the youth. The only person that can stand in their way is local school teacher Matthew Moorhouse (Played by John Martin).

Ready To Rock

This is a movie I would describe as “Fun trash”. The budget for the movie was reportedly one million dollars. The directors previous heavy metal horror cost a mere $52,000 and ended up a big success. It’s notable that what made it work though was it’s trashier aspects. Many critics said it was unintentionally funny. So upgrading the budget for a similar film could have been a recipe for disaster. It’s hard to say if the film was financially successful. While it was originally due a theatrical release, it ended up going direct to video. In the 80’s however that market was booming. That inflated budget mostly went towards creature effects, which is one of the films strengths. These effects look dated by today’s standards, but they aren’t terrible.

Not all the budget was spent on effects though. A great deal was put towards providing the songs for the soundtrack. The band “The Black Roses” was made up mostly of members of King Kobra. This was former Ozzy Osbourne Drummer Carmine Appice’s band. While most of the songs on the soundtrack are by this group, there are also tracks from Lizzie Borden, Bang Tango and a few others. The movie makes sure to give you the time to enjoy each song, which makes it all the more unfortunate the tracks aren’t particularly good. Still, they do the job and the band are the villains anyway, so maybe the music didn’t need to be great!

Dirty Demons Done Dirt Cheap

When it comes to plot, this movie keeps it as straight forward as possible. It doesn’t waste much time or hold much back from the viewer. In the very first scene we see the band in full demon form (Notably different looking to when they transform later) and see the kids at the concert similarly transformed. We do get time to get to know some of the characters and while it’s very bare bones it does what it needs to. Things fully kick off fairly early (Compared to a lot of 80’s films) and they really do showcase a great variety of hellspawn. None of it really seems to have much purpose though and the truth is the kids are far more effective threats before they transform.

That is the big dilemma for this film. The creature effects are its strength but the lack of mobility for those beings really makes them seem almost comical and not a threat at all. This isn’t helped by the way Matthew manages to defeat all The Black Roses demons entirely by himself in a room full of monstrously transformed teenagers. So this is why we are back at “Fun trash”. You really have to shut your brain down a bit and just enjoy the ridiculous visuals. A few beers should make that pretty easy. I’m going to be generous here and give this one a 5.5/10. What can I say, I’m a sucker for movies that mix horror and metal!

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

The Watchers (2024)

Posted on by fenrisfil

The Watchers (Known as “The Watched” in UK/Ireland) is a mystery horror written and directed by Ishana Shyamalan, the daughter of M.Night Shyamalan. This is her feature debut. The movie stars Dakota Fanning as “Mina” who is stranded in a strange Forrest when her car breaks down on an unfamiliar road. She follows a woman named “Madeline”(Olwen Fouéré) who hurries her into a nearby bunker like building she calls “The Coop”. Inside she meets two other strangers Ciara (Georgina Campbell) and Daniel (Oliver Finnegan). Madeline explains that it is impossible to escape the forest and that every night they must return to the coop where they are observed by mysterious and menacing beings. Mina is determined to find a way out and to find out who or what is observing them.

Chip Off The Old Block

The Watchers is another film with an interesting premise that falls short on delivery. It’s interesting to see how much Ishana Shyamalan takes after her father. Like most of his films, the movie throws out a mystery right at the start. Then it gives you the expectation for twists, challenging you to figure them out. Like many of M.Night’s films, those reveals underwhelm and/or are predictable. That’s not to say the Shyamalan formula can’t work, but the success rate is low. Like her father, Ishana seems technically competent and has a good eye for visuals. The problem for this story is that the main twist is particularly predictable and the characters are especially stupid. On the positive side it lands a similar running time to most of M.Night’s work at around an hour and forty and keeps a relatively quick pace.

It’s interesting to note that there is one notable change between the movie and it’s source novel. I can’t reveal that without hitting spoilers but effectively the big reveal of who the watchers are is totally different. The strange thing is from what I can tell (I’ve only read reviews/synopsis of the novel) very little else is changed. But then I recall M.Night did something similar with Old. I don’t think the change improved the story but to be honest neither twist seems especially good. As far as the smaller twists go though, that is far too predictable. The movie runs into a lot of the pitfalls of the science fiction trope strangers trapped in a location. Why does it take the protagonist turning up for anyone to figure anything out? Why do people blindly trust the person that was there the longest?

Conclusion

I had to laugh early when after running around trying to escape for half the day, the protagonist is show the “Point of no return” markers. These are the furthest you can go and have time to return before dark. But heading there part way through the day and then having a conversation at the location make it pretty clear you could definitely go beyond that and still make it back. Especially if you ran instead of casually walked. It made no sense, but no one questioned the bad logic. That sort of sums up the film really. It does have something going for it though as far as the atmosphere is concerned and the fast pace means it isn’t boring. I am going to write this one down as a reasonable start for a first time director, but ultimately not a recommendation. 5/10

Rating: 5 out of 10.

Peeping Tom (1960)

Posted on by fenrisfil

1960 was an important year in history of the horror movie. Most importantly it was the year that “Psycho” came out, but it also featured “Eyes Without A Face”, “Village of the Damned”, “The House of Usher” and the less well known “Peeping Tom”. Despite the lower profile, this is a film that heavily influenced Martin Scorsese and many others of his generation. Indeed it’s largely thanks to Scorsese that the film is known at all these days as he helped fund a wider re-release for the movie in the 1978 after it had fallen into obscurity. When the movie was released the critics were disgusted by it and savaged it suggesting it be thrown into a sewer and other colourful language. As a result it was withdrawn from theatres fairly early and effectively ended the career of it’s director Michael Powell.

Decades later, critics revised their opinion. Now they called it one of the greatest horror films of all time. The revision was too late to save Powell’s career. Some people are ahead of their time, but if you are too far ahead the response can be savage. One of the main reasons for the backlash was that some sections of the film involve old movies of the main character and his father. These scenes reveal how the character was abused as a child by his father. The problem here was that Michael Powell chose to perform these scenes with his real life son. There was no actual abuse involved, but it seemed this made critics uncomfortable. Anyway, let’s look at the film itself shall we?

Don’t Let Me See You Are Afraid

The movie opens up with “Mark Lewis” (Played by Karlheinz Böhm), picking up a prostitute. Lewis is secretly filming her with a hidden camera. We see from the point of view of the camera viewfinder as he follows her into the flat and murders her. Later, we see him watching the recording in his dark room. Following this opening we are introduced to the other side of Lewis. A focus puller for a film crew who aspires to become a filmaker. His job doesn’t pay enough to cover his costs though and so he supplements that as a soft porn photographer for a local corner shop. His photos are sold under the counter to select customers.

Lewis is a shy but relatively pleasant person during the day. However he has been secretly working on his own film, a documentary about fear. Mark lives in his childhood home, though most of it is now rented out to other residents. One of which “Helen Stephens” (Anna Massey) has taken a liking to the young man. Mark likes Helen too but doesn’t want her to become one of his victims. He shows her the few films he dares to share with anyone, those of his childhood where his psychologist father abused him to investigate the nature of fear. She is shocked, but supportive. Their relationship becomes tricky because Mark is reaching the end of his documentary and soon he will be unable to keep the two halves of his life separate.

The Eye Of The Beholder

This is a very good movie. There is no denying that. The story has many layers, but the visuals are masterfully put together too. Let’s start with those visuals. This is 1960. Shooting from the first person perspective isn’t completely unknown at this point (Indeed there has been whole movies of it), but showing murders from the killers perspective is pretty new. Psycho of course made use of this two, but here it provides a double function. We’re not simply seeing from the killers eyes, but we’re seeing through his camera. We are seeing effectively a section of his documentary on fear. The movie has made us a voyeur of murder.

This isn’t the only thing interesting visually. Powell uses a technique called colour Chiaroscuro, where he uses a saturated palette with dramatic shadows. The colours are quite aggressive, almost feeling seedy. This is contrasted by the “Old” black and white camera footage of the young Mark taken by his father. This is another interesting one for horror at the time, it is almost a found footage situation. The scenes skillfully portray the abuse that Mark suffered but because of the nature of the home movies these scenes didn’t require much in the way of acting skills, so not a huge surprise he filmed them at home with his own son.

The Price of Obsession

In the film Mark has two obsessions and they are almost indistinguishable from each other. One is his obsession with fear. It is seeing fear that drives him to kill. More importantly though it drives him to capture that fear on camera. That is the real obsession here, Mark is a filmmaker and he is making his masterpiece. Most of the time Mark is a nice enough person, shy even especially around women. But his entire demeanor changes when he is preparing to film a kill. His most ambitious murder is recorded at the studio he works on the set on the very movie he has been working on for his day job. As his victim dances (Warming up for what she is an audition tape), he dashes around adjusting props and cameras. He is focused like a razorblade, his victim is no longer a human but just another prop to get in position.

Mark is driven by obsession. Obsession with his camera, which he takes with him everywhere he goes (Until Helen asks him to leave it behind on a date). There is also Marks original obsession with voyeurism, where the movie takes it’s title. But it is his obsession to finish his documentary and record the faces of fear that drive him beyond all reason. Martin Scorsese felt this obsession reflected the drive of many a filmmaker and the dangerous line they walk in their pursuit of perfect. Considering that, it frames Powell’s direct involvement and the damage it did to his career with the themes of the movie itself. The masterpiece reflects the reality (But fortunately it was only a career killed in real life).

Conclusion

This is an exceptional film and I can see why Scorsese was so heavily influenced by it. Karlheinz Böhm is not an actor I know, but he is exceptional here. The film really is clever and definitely was ahead of its time. As always though I review from the modern day, not in context of how ground breaking something was. This movie has aged remarkably well though. Nothing here really has dated, except perhaps for the color palette but that palette works so well for the movie even this isn’t a problem. This scores a well deserving 8/10

Rating: 8 out of 10.