Suspect's October Horror Movie Thread

October's over. THREAD CLOSED.

As you wish.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

The big question on people’s mind seems to be, is The Visit a return to form for the once promising director, M. Night Shyamalan. The answer is yes and no. While the film is leaps and bounds better than his last 4 previous efforts which include: the dreadful After Earth, the boring Last Airbender, the inane The Happening and the disappointing Lady in the Water, it fails to be anything more than another entry in a long list of horror found footage films. Yes, M. Night Shyamalan has fallen far my friends, so much that just his name on the screen invokes laughter and groans from the audience. He has to fall back and rely on an overused horror genre to bring some sort of credit to his tarnished legacy.

His entry into the found footage genre is The Visit. What Jaws did for the water, The Visit might do for old people. When a mother of two young kids is contacted by her estranged parents, asking to finally see their grandkids, she decides to let her kids go live with their grandparents for the week, while she goes away on vacation. The kids are so excited that the film loving daughter decides to make a documentary about it. Bringing her trusted camera along for the ride, she captures some odd footage from her grandparents and weirder and weirder things start happening after 9:30. So we have to ask ourselves, what’s wrong with NaNa and Pop Pop???

The one thing this film does right is something that Shyamalan seems to do well or at least use to, is create a terrific atmosphere. The old home has just enough corners here and there to raise the tension, to make us as ourselves, “What’s behind the corner over there?” Having the film be a found footage picture, gives Shyamalan more control over the camera. He can choose what to reveal and when is trickier ways which put the characters in a bit more danger. One terrific sequence where Shyamalan is really at his best is when the kids decide to play Hide and Seek under the house. You expect the unexpected and Shyamalan delivers probably the best scene he’s done in years.

The grandparents are excellent; they convey just the right amount of oddness and sympathy. Each scene that they have alone with the kids is when they try to explain away the weirdness of the other. NaNa describes why Pop Pop does the things he does and vice versa. It was an interesting dynamic between the characters that immediately tells you that they are hiding something. Unfortunately, the same can’t really be said about the children. Two unbelievable kids, which means I did not believe anything they did was genuine. Whether it is rapping, yes the kid raps a lot, or the cinematic dialogue the girl uses. Nothing they said or did ring true to me, which took me out of the experience.

The Visit is creepy enough to warrant a watch for those that love the found footage films. It’s shot in a way that doesn’t lead to vertigo or nausea. You finally have a film where you get to see everything that happens on the screen, which was a nice change of pace. Shyamalan might not be back in the good graces of people, but The Visit is a decent start.

I like slashers, as you know, so I'd hope to like Sorority Row. Words like generic slasher are music to my ears. I like the original.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

After the less than stellar box office return of Hostel Part II, Eli Roth blamed the internet and swore off making films for a long time. In fact, he hasn't directed another movie since then. He's produced, starred in and wrote a few, but never touched the camera again, except for the sniper film that plays in Inglorious Basterds and the Thanksgiving segment from Grindhouse. Almost ten years later and we have not one, but two feature films from Roth. The Green Inferno, which was actually completed in 2013, but held up until now, and the erotic horror thriller Knock Knock, which is a remake of 1977 film Death Game.

Did Roth coming back from "retirement" encourage me to see the film? Was it the deranged sexual element that would draw me in? No, it was Keanu Reeves my friend. Everything else didn't matter to me, I wanted to see Keanu Reeves in movies again. He did a kick ass job in John Wick, now I was going to see if he would be able to play a helpless cheat who is terrified for his life. Can Reeves pull it off? The man has been labeled emotionless in a lot of his film roles, so this would seem like it would require him to dig down and actually act. Now, he does manage to scream, freak out and indeed, act terrified at times, but there is always and I mean always, something off about his performances. Maybe it's his monotone voice or the way he carries himself, but it doesn't always come off well. Don't get me wrong, I highly enjoy a lot of his work, but a great thespian the man is not. He's perfectly watchable though and does the story service in Knock Knock.

Reeves plays Evan, an architect who has to stay at home for the long weekend and work, while his wife and two kids go to the beach house. One stormy night, he hears a knock at his door, two young beautiful women are stranded and need his help. While inside, they manage to seduce him, despite his constant resistance. The next morning he finds out that they won't leave, not without playing a game with him being an unwilling participant. So the premise alone seems like a typical invasion torture horror flick, with the added element of sex and the intruders being young hot women. Once that is out of the way, the film offers nothing new or insightful. Roth, a man who knows a thing or two about the genre, tries to amp of the suspense a bit, but falls into the same generic traps all these films do. Knock Knock isn't sexy enough, nor terrifying enough. I guess it must just feel weird to direct your wife in a naked threesome with Keanu Reeves.

The question people will be asking themselves is, will Reeves live or die by the end of the film. I won't spoil how it ends, but the build up to that final situation is decent enough to make the film watchable. The denouement is completely wrong though and adds an unneeded comedic joke that is literally the very end of the film. You go through this long torturous journey with Reeves, only to have it end with a one liner? Really odd choice that left me scratching my head with disappointment. I wanted some kind of answer to what would happen next, but never got it. Roth leaves a little hint here or there, but I guess I wanted something a little more concrete.

What the film does accomplish is me, never opening my door to anyone. Not even two young, beautiful, wet women who beg me to let them inside so they can have sex with me. That's just for my dreams.

This film has one hell of a premise that immediately grabbed my attention. It features the exact blend of comedy and horror that I love and that so rarely filmmakers do right. The severely underrated Club Dread is a perfect example of how so many people can miss the intended humour. Then you have hits like Tucker & Dale vs Evil, which not only is a great premise, but is also both hilarious and a bloody good time. People either seem to love or hate these films and it's most likely because it's so hard to balance the two genres. When done right, it's gold, when done wrong, it's terrible.

The Final Girls, for the most part, lands on the good side of the spectrum. Max, loses her mother in a car accident and 3 years to the day, is invited to a screening of her late mother's most famous film, a cheesy 80's horror flick called Camp Blood. During the screening the theatre catches fire, so Max and her friends have to escape and cut right through the theatre screen. Next thing they know, they're in the movie. The exact same movie her mother appears in, which now gives Max a second opportunity to be with her mother, only if she survives the deranged killer roaming the woods.

The film has a great opportunity to capitalize on a lot of horror cliches, much like the way The Cabin in the Woods did brilliantly. One character in particular, a Randy Meeks os horror films, is the perfect opportunity to connect the film characters with the viewer at home. What would Randy do if he were literally transported into the film Scream? This was an interesting approach that I hoped the filmmakers would take. They don't. They kind of walk the line, but they are pretty inconsistent with things.

Being in the horror film and knowing how it ends is perfect fodder for comedy gold. The film did make me laugh, many times, but I wanted to laughs to be really enjoyable. Instead I chuckled a lot throughout the film. Instead of being a comedy, the film has a surprising amount of drama thrown in. Max has an opportunity to reunite with her mother, only the person in the movie isn't her mother, she's the character her mother plays in the film. Again, great set ups for comedy gold, yet we get mild humour. I little disappointing on that end, but still enough comedy in the film to make me smile.

The filmmakers throw some interesting aspects of the genre at the viewers and the characters. The characters can actually hear the "ch ch ch cha cha cha" that accompanies a nearby victim or a flashback that transports the character even further back in time. Title cards that they can interact with, a specific time line of events to unfold. Every 92 minutes, things start over again because that is the length of the film. These things are clever and make for a unique viewing experience.

One of the biggest problems with the film is that it doesn't go far enough with the material. It's held back by the rating. The film features very little gore and no nudity. These things are staples of the horror genre, especially the 80's slasher films that the film is parodying. If the film has embraced these things and given us an R rated comedy, then it would have been a lot better. It felt restrained in a sense.

Not a wasted opportunity, not at all. The film is good and those who enjoy these types of movies will surely have a good time. I just think the possibilities could have been so much more. They had a great idea and didn't try and take it any further beyond that. This film easily, could have been one of my favourites of the year, instead it settles for being just a good movie.

If you ever sat down and thought to yourself, Pleasantville as a horror film would be brilliant. This film is for you.

Eli Roth has me trapped in his web. I don't particularly find his films that enjoyable, yet I sit down and watch all of them when they come out. I believe the man receives too much hype and credit from some horror fans because quite frankly, he hasn't done anything to deserve it. He sure as hell knows his horror films though, that is for damn sure. But what has he given us? Cabin Fever and Hostel are his two most well known films, they're decent, at best. Yet time after time I hear about how he's going to save the genre. Well he hasn't and he won't.

Look no further than he last two entries. Knock Knock, the seductive thriller that stars Keanu Reeves as a cheating husband being tortured by his sex partners and The Green Inferno, Roth's homage to the cannibal genre. Did the cannibal genre need a film to homage it? That's up for debate, as is the quality of this film. The Green Inferno was actually shot 2 years ago, but has been stuck in release limbo since then. It has finally seen the light of day and as it is with any film that has been held back, it doesn't live up to the hype.

Is it bloody? Yes. Is it sadistic? Yes. Is it a good movie? Not really. I can't really blame it on Roth though, the genre itself is nothing to wag a stick at. He manages to hit the same notes as all those other films do. They just seem tired and repetitive. He even acknowledges those films in the credits, so I would recommend seeing those movies instead.

Our characters are in a plane crash somewhere in the jungle. The survivors are immediately captured by a tribe of cannibals and are held prisoner until the tribe feels the need to eat. One by one our characters bite the dust, either by being eaten, or killed while trying to escape. Either way, it doesn't look good for anyone. Nor does it look good for the audience as they have to sit through an hour of repetitive screams, decapitations and sleep inducing darts. For a film mainly about killing people and eating them, it's pretty routine.

The cast of characters range from tolerable to down right annoying. Two characters that we are suppose to like are the tolerable ones. One of them being Roth's wife, who was also one of the seductive torturers from Knock Knock. Here she is put through the wringer and dehumanized. Roth also seems to like the idea of showing his wife's naked body to as many people as possible. On the other end of the spectrum is the down right annoying lead activist, who has secrets...oooohhhhhh. Even in the face of death, the man still manages to be more despicable than the savages. What makes it worse is that we are not allowed to relish in any torture given to him. I won't explain, but the film doesn't seem interested in making this guy suffer at all, it's everyone else that has to take it.

With the exception of the first kill and eating, this film was surprisingly tame. I'm more shocked at how the film did not disgust me than I am with the acts depicted. When one character is eaten alive by the tribe, it's basically a shot for shot lift from Day of the Dead. This idea behind what happens is obviously more horrific than what Roth can come up with, but he still tries to one up us. It doesn't work out in the end and older cannibal films like Ferox or Holocaust are more shocking than what The Green Inferno can offer.

Green Inferno is a miss for me, despite it falling almost perfectly in line with what it intended to do. Oh...and I really like the title of the film. I don't know why. It's the best thing about the movie.

I decided to revisit and re-review a cult classic that my parents saw when they were dating...and hated...and make fun of. The first film in a "how did this become more than one movie" trilogy. Basket Case.

A young man travels to New York City with his deformed siamese brother in a basket. Yes, they were detached and he carries his little brother around in a wicker basket. Their plan is to seek revenge on the doctors that separated them. But things don't go according to plan.

This is an odd film, no one is denying that. In order to like this film, you'll need to like trash/crap/horrible/B-Movie garbage. This is all that plus more. It has the right amount of sleaziness to warrant a cult following, so I can see why there are people out there that do like this film. It has that weird appeal, but that appeal doesn't work for me.

There is a scene when the deformed brother has sex with a dead woman. When you see what the deformed brother looks like, you'll understand why this is all sorts of wrong. That 'all sorts of wrong' is the reason people like this film. The brother is a mixture of puppetry and Claymation. Watching him run around and destroy the apartment is hilarious and the scenes looks extremely dated. I feel at least everyone will get a kick out of that scene.

The film had a small budget, and you can tell. The audio is off in places and the acting is horrid, which is expected. The ending was bizarre, but actually worked. A quick look at some special features and you'll hear the director say; "Basketcase 3 what were we thinking?" I haven't had the pleasure to watch either of the two sequels, I don't think they'll be high on my "to watch" list.

Nice review of Basket Case TUS, easily one of the most WTF movies ive ever seen.

Also, fair play to Chyp for even entertaining the idea of watching the sequal, let alone 2!

__________________
Too weird to live, and too rare to die.

I don't know why it took me this long to watch Misery, but even after 25 years and countless imitators, this film rocks my socks.

Paul Sheldon is a famous writer, most famous for his ongoing series titled 'Misery'. After completing a new novel up in the middle of nowhere, he races back to civilization to deliver the draft. Big mistake, a freak snow storm makes him lose control of his car and crash. Luckily he is saved by a woman who lives in the area. She takes care of him while he is bed ridden and luckily for him, she is his number one fan.

Based on the Stephen King novel, Misery takes fan admiration one, two, maybe three steps too far. We enter the world of Annie Wilkes, a deranged woman who will stop at nothing to keep her favourite author locked up in her house, just to have him all to herself. At first, she seems like a loveable do-gooder. She won't swear, she's overly nice and humble. Things start to crack here and there when she doesn't hear things that she likes. Violent outbursts, stone cold stare downs and even sledgehammers make it into the mix. That sledgehammer scene by the way, which is arguably the most famous scene in the film, still makes me cringe even though I've seen numerous clips of it over the years. Extremely well done in my opinion. On the flip side of that, the scene when someone smacks their head on the typewriter...horribly done. Laughably, horribly done. That's the one hiccup in this otherwise, tightly directed film.

I was surprised by the amount of talent behind the camera. Reiner directing, William Goldman adapting the story from King and Barry Sonnenfeld as the cinematographer. All three of these areas are highlights of the film. Without reading the book, I get the sense that Goldman managed to get the best adaptation of the work possible. Reiner gives us many scenes of unnerving tension, heightened because our lead protagonist can't even walk. Sonnenfeld captures the cold wintery landscape beautifully in scenes and really lets us feel the isolation.

The real standout is of course, Bates. In her breakout role, which won her on Oscar no less, she commands the screen with oddity. She even makes snorting like an exciting pig seem perfectly fine, yet still oddly out of place in her role of Annie the psycho Wilkes. Every scene she was in, I had no idea what to expect. Will she be happy, mean, excited, deranged or dangerous? Sometimes she'd be all of them in a matter of seconds. An outstanding performance for sure, one that could have crippled the film is not done as well as she did. Caan manages to hold his own against her. I feel he has just as difficult a job in that he is restricted from using his body as much as one would like. He relies more on his facial expressions than anything else, he has to. Of course there is Richard Farnsworth, he is a loveable goofball here as the Sheriff. He delivers his lines with such soft, caring and humourous attitude that he almost feels like he should be in a different film. All three performances here are great and deserve recognition.

Misery is a great film that I'm ashamed to have put off for so damn long.

Oh my god, watched them BOTH last night in a horror B about experimenting on paranoid schizophrenics.

__________________

This looks awful! I need to check it out.

I love it.

Also...looks like I'm the only person who didn't like The Babadook.

The Babadook? I hated it.
I wanted to kill that little child myself!

REASON TO WATCH!!!!

Gods, I love Kane Hodder.



And gods, I miss you.

OH MY GOD I forgive you for calling Jason Takes Manhattan an abomination.

I may or may not do my own version of this thread next month. Not promising anything, just considering it.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I'll take this as a promise and hold you to your word.