Re93animator's Review Thread
 

As of June 2016: I’ve got a fever, and the only prescription, is tediously writing some film reviews. However, please keep in mind that, naturally, looking back on much of the older content makes me wince, and my keenness for many of the films previously rated here has fluctuated quite a bit since.

Index:

Page 1 (Older stuff):
Gangs of New York (2002)
Death Wish (1974)
Sweeney Todd (1936, 2006, 2007)
Mad Love (1935)
The Omega Man (1971)
Dead of Night (1945)
Hangover Square (1945)
Mean Streets (1973)
French Connection II (1975)
Page 2:
Magic (1978)
Nightmare Alley (1947)
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
The Time of Their Lives (1946)
The Lodger (1927)
Seance on a Wet Afternoon (1964)
Bedlam (1946)
The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009)
Cure (1997)
Dust Devil (1992)
The Wolfman (2010)
Page 3:
Smart Money (1931)
Predators (2010)
Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (1992)
House by the River (1950)
Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler (1922)
The Testament of Dr. Mabuse (1933)
Hardware (1990)
Shutter Island (2010)
Angst (1983)
Encounter at Raven's Gate (1988)
The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945)
De dødes tjern (1958)
Page 4 (More recent stuff):
The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939)
Haxan: Witchcraft Through the Ages (1922)
Lust for Life (1956)
L'Atalante (1934)
The Revenant (2015)
The Secret Adventures of Tom Thumb (1993)
Kin-dza-dza (1986)
Until the End of the World (1991)
Split Second (1992)
Necronomicon (1993)
Dagon (2001)
Re-Animator (1985)
Page 5:
Bride of Re-Animator (1989)
Beyond Re-Animator (2003)
Visitor of a Museum (1989)
The Short Films of Jan Svankmajer (1964-1993)
Sorcerer (1977)
Blood and Black Lace (1964)
Night of the Creeps (1986)
The Most Dangerous Game (1932)
Furry Vengeance (2010)
Page 6:
A Bucket of Blood (1959)
No Escape (1994)
Six-String Samurai (1998)
Fortress 2: Re-Entry (1999/2000?)
Fortress (1992)
Golem (1980)
O-Bi, O-Ba – The End of Civilization (1985)
Webmaster (1998)
Page 7:
Impostor (2001)
Stalker (1979)
Beauty and the Beast (1978)
The Dead Pit (1989)
Hardware (1990)
Gregoire Moulin vs. Humanity (2001)
Johnny Mnemonic (1995)
The War of the Worlds: Next Century (1981)
World on a Wire (1973)
Doctor X (1932)
Page 8:
Dead Mountaineer’s Hotel (1979)
The Mysterious Castle in the Carpathians (1981)
Dune (1984)
On the Silver Globe (1988)
Solaris (1972)
Page 9:
Eden Log (2007)
Ga, Ga - Chwala bohaterom (1986)
The Neon Demon (2016)
Happy End (1967)
The Old Dark House (1932)
The Blood of Heroes (1989)
Page 10:
Alphaville (1965)
Flash Gordon (1980)
Posrednik (1990)
Nirvana (1997)
Woman in the Moon (1929)
Los Olvidados (1950)
Soy Cuba (1964)
Enter the Void (2009)
Metropolis (1927)
The Sentinel (1977)
Page 11:
Hard to Be a God (2013)
Combat Shock (1984)
Esoteric Sci-fi List!
Page 12:
Esoteric Sci-fi List continued
Playtime (1967)
The Documentaries of Richard Stanley
Oblivion (2013)
Death Race (2008)
Soldier (1998)
Strange Days (1995)
The Spanish Prisoner (1997)
___________________________________________________

First of all, I'm not sure if there's a certain post count required to have one of these threads, and I apologize if there are some rules I'm violating. I just want a place to keep all of my reviews organized rather than losing them in the countless pages of the Movie Tab, so I decided to try this.

Anyway, I've been seeing a bunch of Drag Me to Hell reviews everywhere, and I figured that I'd add to the pile:

Drag Me to Hell (2009)
http://i40.tinypic.com/5jzfwk.jpg

Whew, it’s been a while since I’ve been to the theater, and with Drag Me to Hell being the presentation, it was certainly a refreshing experience. I’ll start by stating that anyone who thinks Drag Me to Hell is a typical modern horror flick understands nothing about the film.

Whilst the film surpasses most modern contributions of the genre (which is not saying much), it is still not as good as you may think the return of the classic horror film may be. And it is inspired by a good number of old fashioned scare flicks, most notably Night of the Demon or The Omen.

The film kicks off when Christine Brown, a loan officer, desperate to impress her superiors, evicts an old gypsy woman by refusing an extension of a bank loan. The gypsy woman makes a scene and afterword accuses Christine of “shaming” her. The woman attacks Christine later on in a parking lot and places the curse of the “Lamia” on Christine. The rest of the film focuses on Christine realizing the dire situation she has been placed in and her trying to find a way to lift the curse.

From a technical standpoint, the film is everything you’d expect it to be; decent acting, over the top special effects, and a poor plot. But, Drag Me to Hell does what it sets out to do, which is entertain. The films score by Christopher Young (Hellraiser, Species) is a fantastic classic horror throwback and fits the film perfectly.

Drag Me to Hell is destined to be hailed as one of the best horror comedies since Shaun of the Dead, and Mr. Raimi’s return to the genre is everything an Evil Dead fan would want. But, for those that are less appealed to the Evil Dead films, Drag Me to Hell may look naive, and the film is certainly not for everyone. I can hardly remember five minutes going by without something aided by Young’s unsettling horror music popping out in front of the camera lens, or something gooey getting splashed in the main characters face, or a giant gust of wind blowing crap all over the place, and it may be those places where the film will work extremely well for some, and may seem ridiculous to others.

Overall, Drag Me to Hell is completely self-aware, it knows where it’s coming from, and it contains loads of fun if you’re in the right mindset for it. The film carries a dark, morbid, yet silly aura, and should be the perfect scare flick to watch on Halloween this year. As a big horror film fan myself, I enjoyed this quite a bit.

+

Gangs of New York (2002)
http://i42.tinypic.com/do1e28.jpg

Gangs of New York is a fantastic film, fueled by terrific performances from an impressive cast, top-notch direction, and no-holds-barred violence. Epic as they come, Gangs of New York held me in its uncompromising grip from the get-go, and didn’t budge until the credits flashed across the screen.

The film is as entertaining as it is visually impressive. And something about the visuals, though running with the filthy, gritty streets of old New York, carries a significant amount of beauty. The cinematography provides an unrelenting darkness that the film thrives on.

The film may fall flat with many due to its endless bouts of violence. The opening war scene is one of the most battering, brutal, and bloody fights one may experience on film. And the unrelenting violence plays a big part for the rest of the film.

As one who is not bothered easily by violence on film, the fight scene at the beginning was one of most impressive film openings I’ve come across. The camera following the characters preparing for battle is amazing to watch, and with the unique yet fitting score playing on top of it, the scene was made all the more impressive. When every sound abruptly ends, the viewer is sucked in to the confrontation of the two rival gangs. The ending plays the same way, building tension with ease.

What makes up for what some may consider to be seemingly senseless violence is a remarkable and powerful story about Amsterdam Vallon (played by Leonardo DiCaprio), an Irish immigrant hardly out of his youth, seeking revenge against Bill the Butcher (played fantastically by Daniel Day-Lewis), the leader of a rival gang, and the man who killed Amsterdam’s father years ago.

The film was undeniably one of the best pictures of the year upon its initial release, and should now be looked upon as one of the best pictures of the decade as well as a massive success for the film’s director, the always reliable Martin Scorsese.

Death Wish (1974)
http://i43.tinypic.com/mm4fbl.jpg

Death Wish is a film that receives the infamous “shoot ‘em up” label in bad judgment. Much like Dirty Harry and The Planet of the Apes, the film’s reputation was built from a mass of inferior sequels. What many don’t know is that Death Wish carries frightening social commentary as well as a high powered punch delivered by the story of a man reaching his breaking point.

When Paul Kersey’s family is attacked by a group of muggers that end up killing his wife and mentally scarring his daughter, Kersey reaches his breaking point. Seeking out muggers on the street and executing any who dare challenge him, Paul Kersey then becomes the killer infamously labeled as “The Vigilante.”

What makes the film special is Kersey’s descent into violence. Hell-bent on revenge after his wife and daughter were attacked he prowls the streets waiting, almost anticipating, muggers holding him up at knife point; and when the blade is put forth by another being, it’s payback time.

The film gives the impression that Kersey feels good about taking the lives of those that insist on running amuck; a sense of relief and satisfaction is bestowed upon him once he begins committing the dreadful crimes. He feels he is doing the city a justice by wiping out the trash. Once Kersey receives that sleek looking revolver gently shipped to him via mail, he gazes upon it as if he is coming in contact with an old enemy; he looks aware that the gun will become his vice, or his “tool” specified for cleaning the streets. Kersey’s intelligence leads him to be seemingly always one step ahead of the police.

The film carries a strong message suggesting that vigilantism could be an urban crime prevention tool. The crime rates in the city drastically decrease after Kersey goes on his killing spree. Charles Bronson leads the cast as Paul Kersey in a remarkable performance that heightened his career. His performance suggests an arguable question about his character: Hero or Villain? The film perceives Kersey as a hero.

Death Wish is an interesting take on urban crime and has spawned numerous sequels also containing the social commentary that made the first unique in its own way, but are normally served to the audience as a showing of a one man army tearing through street gangs with ease bringing the quality of the original down in the process. Death Wish is a film that should be looked upon as a gritty and riveting thriller to be reckoned with.

Instead of posting 1 review like I normally do, I've decided to post 3 since all three of the following films carry the same basis:

For those that are not aware, there was said to be a serial killing barber in the late 1700’s to early 1800’s that is infamously known now as Sweeney Todd. The urban legend has been portrayed in media for decades and continues to bring fright and intrigue to audiences around the world.

Sweeney Todd, as the legend has it, would have a revolving trap door built onto a chair that would activate with the pull of a lever. Mr. Todd is said to have sat unsuspecting customers down in the chair, and pull the lever after having slit their throats. His accomplice in crime, Ms. Lovett, is said to have baked the human remains of Todd’s victims into meat pies… charming, eh?

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (1936)
http://i44.tinypic.com/ic7r86.jpg
If anyone's interested, here is a link to legally watch the film for free.

Early horror film star, Tod Slaughter (a great name to sport while playing Sweeney Todd) takes on the performance of Todd, and portrays him more as a raving maniac than anything else, but his performance is good, and carries much of the qualities that you’d see someone like Boris Karloff pulling off.

In the film Sweeney doesn’t slit the customer’s throats right away. He pulls his little lever thus activating a trap chair that throws the customer into the basement before he kills. He then proceeds to go down into the basement where he “polishes them off” and take any of the customer’s belongings that are worth anything. It is done this way to give the audience a little hope. Hope that one of the customers may escape Mr. Todd before getting polished off, and it is blatantly obvious that that’s what was going to happen all along. Which is the biggest problem with the film; it is exceedingly predictable and lacks anything close to being intelligence. If one can let their mind go, sit back, and watch it, it can be a pretty entertaining flick.

Todd’s inducement for crime is greed, and the customers that he kills are often the wealthy. Ms. Lovett isn’t much of a character in this one, and is, for the most part, portrayed solely as Todd’s associate in crime. Ms. Lovett’s character is disappointing, though she poses the same vitality in this version that she does in most other versions (Meat Pies!), her relationship with Todd simply isn’t there, and her character is much less explored than it should be.

The story starts off very well, but becomes more preposterous as it goes along. About twenty minutes into it, it begins to carry on with a completely different image than it started off with, and fails in an effort to return. But, on a positive note, it is everything you’d expect a 1936 Sweeney Todd film to be, and it carries that darkly humorous undertone that many early horror flicks have (to try and brighten up the imposingly dark content of the film).

This version of Sweeney Todd hardly ever gets any attention anymore, and has since become a nice little forgotten gem. Slaughter’s portrayal of Todd is not very credible, but still works fine as what it tries to be; a crazed horror villain. This picture manages to entertain enough, and also manages to set its focus equally on the horror and crime qualities of the tale.


Sweeney Todd (2006)
http://i41.tinypic.com/33k9onl.jpg

First exposed to audiences with a television debut on the BBC channel, the 2006 version of Sweeney Todd provides a new look on the tale of Sweeney Todd without being extremely over the top, but tries to bring the tale to the screen credibly. This version brings visceral drama to the myth unlike the ’36 and ’07 versions that concentrate almost solely on ghoulish horror and crime.

Sweeney Todd is played by Ray Winstone, and is portrayed remarkably. The film portrays Todd as a psychopath with no motive for killing, whereas other versions of the story normally include greed in Todd’s incentive to kill, or revenge as it is in the musical adaption.

What Todd’s characterization has in this that is normally put off in other versions is authenticity. Sweeney Todd acts how a crazed murderer would most likely act, with severe mental instability, which, in return, disturbs the viewer much more than any of the other versions even thought of doing.
A turn off for audiences would likely be the gruesome nature of the film. Blood is frequently shown, as it very well should be in a film about throats getting sliced, and there are no dark amusing anecdotes to cheer the viewer up.

What most modern horror flicks that take place in this time period ordinarily thrive on is atmosphere, and this one’s got plenty of that. Without looking too artificial, the foggy streets of London contain a ghastly aura. The aura even becomes aberrant at times, and it packs a visual structure that should please most viewers. But, this is not your typical horror flick; it carries equal parting of drama and predominantly fits numerous categories.

It’s not the best film it could be, and could even be a great film if given the proper treatment, but it is entertaining and likely to succeed in disturbing those with weak stomachs. Much like the 1936 film, this one receives hardly any attention anymore (even having only been out since ’06), but it is worth a look.


Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)
http://i44.tinypic.com/30rlgjl.jpg

The best cinematic version of the myth to date, and Sweeney’s got an axe to grind in this one. This version adds a bunch to the tale (for the better) including revenge as an incentive for Mr. Todd’s grotesque crimes, and is based on the famous Broadway musical.

This version is as self aware a film as you’ll ever find. The film realizes how over the top the story is, and how ridiculous it could look if not made with the right attitude. So, in a film with seemingly endless bouts of blood, and people getting baked into meat pies, the attitude is shown with a whole new perspective; with the perspective of an extremely rare breed: the musical horror film.

The screen is often filled with the classic looking bright red blood, but this should not alienate people away from it. Among the intentionally fake looking blood is a story unlike that of any other Sweeney Todd film, which also brings this version up and above its predecessors. Burton’s involvement is apparent and the visual structure is one of the best Tim Burton has ever been involved with. Throw in Stephen Sondheim’s fabulous score and the film looks and sounds as technically impressive as it could ever be.

The acting is almost entirely fantastic, and Johnny Depp plays the best Sweeney Todd you’ll most likely ever see in a role that earned him an OSCAR nomination. Helena Bonham Carter (as Ms. Lovett) is one of the closest things that the film ever comes to a flaw. She often mumbles through songs which is (and this goes without saying) inexcusable in a musical film. Much of the time, the visuals are so enchanting that the mumbling is easily avoided and aided with the beauty of the picture. Singing aside, Carter’s acting ability in the film doesn’t stand out among the other terrific performances, but was satisfactory. Her character (Ms. Lovett) is given the right amount of attention, and is the most interesting characterization of Ms. Lovett film goers will most likely ever see. The supporting cast includes dignified performances from Alan Rickman, Timothy Spall and Sacha Baron Cohen.

The films atmosphere is the trait that stands out more than any other, it thrives on it; oozes with it. Sweeney Todd is gloriously dark, and is a visual masterwork. It packs similarities to Burton’s Sleepy Hollow and numerous Roger Corman/ Vincent Price classics. Everything accomplished with the setting adds abundantly to the story, which adds a ton more to the movie itself.

As the minutes add up, this tale of Sweeney Todd becomes not only a tale of vengeance, but a tale of hysteria, unlike the other versions of Sweeney Todd that are exclusively tales of greed, murder and hysteria. I shall choose my words carefully in caution of spoiling anything. Sweeney looks for revenge on Judge Turpin (the man who separated him from his wife).

Much of the film is built up to the segment in which Sweeney reveals his identity to Judge Turpin, but somewhere down the line originality kicks in and Sweeney loses a bit of sanity, going on a murder spree, which is where hysteria becomes a big part of the film.

Upon initial release, Sweeney Todd was mainly praised by critics and movie-goers alike. Though, the film seems to receive some criticism for being a musical. The music adds a bit of madness to an already diabolical picture. The film wouldn’t work nearly as well if it weren’t an adaption of the Sondheim musical. Not that it would not have worked at all, I personally would always carry a little intrigue by any shape or form of a Sweeney Todd story, and the story behind Sweeney Todd itself is incredible, but the musical bits show Todd’s sentiment and consciousness in ways that any other form of a Sweeney Todd film would have failed to do so thoroughly, and makes Sweeney Todd one hell of an intriguing character in this one.

The excessive blood seems to be another among a few complaints of the film. The blood is intentionally thrown in the film so messily, and perhaps tries to seem over the top to lighten the mood a bit. The gory parts seem to always be imminent in the second half of the film, where the film evolves from a simple revenge story to a tale of absolute madness. Or the false look of the blood could just be thrown in as a mere homage to classic horror films. This version of Sweeney Todd is indeed as much of a horror flick as it is a musical, and a great one at that.
+

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

+ rep just for including the Tod Slaughter version, which is my favourite BTW. Actually, were it not for Drew, my avatar would've been from that film. It's the one I'm going to use tomorrow.

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

Wow! Tod Slaughter made a crapload o B-slasher flicks, but OK, I'm not even sure that The Demon Barber(the first one) was the best one.

I liked Burton's version best (as you can see), and I think the '07 version was the only Todd film given enough talent and effort to be great, but I did like Slaughter's version quite a bit. I wish Slaughter would have done a bit more (and better) work in horror pictures. He could have been one of the early luminaries of the genre.

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

Slaughter didn't do too many films, but most of it's unavailable or really difficult to get hold of. After his film work finished, he used to do his act on the theatre circuit and died in his dressing room after a show.

No, I wouldn't say Demon Barbar was the best one either, there's a few that are better than that, IMO, but it's my favourite version of the three re93 posted.

My favourite Slaughter film is, probably, Murder In The Red Barn or The Greed of William Hart, but I've not seen either of those for quite a while.

Mad Love (1935)
http://i39.tinypic.com/fyhf2h.jpg

Directed by Karl Freund who served as cinematographer for horror classics such as The Golem, Dracula, and Murders in the Rue Morgue, Mad Love is the epitome of the classic horror film. Freund had already made his mark in American Horror serving as the director of the legendary Universal production of The Mummy starring horror luminary Boris Karloff, but Mad Love did heighten the career of its star Peter Lorre quite a bit. Lorre was no stranger to foreign cinema, but Mad Love distinguished Lorre as an actor worth Universal acclaim. Lorre’s performance brought a new ideal antagonist for the big screen, and is still one of the creepiest damn performances I’ve ever seen. His wide eyed stare, soft voice, and strange look make his character, Dr. Gogol, menacing in a way that only Lorre could pull off.

Mad Love is the type of stuff that Halloween was built off of. It contains the macabre, the monstrous, and the direful, and tells a tale of obsession and passion with a horrific twist. For almost the entire runtime, the film builds up to a man’s breaking point. It tells the story of Dr. Gogol, who is desperate for love, yet cannot find it anywhere he turns. The story takes a disturbing turn once the audience is shown the man’s interest in death and horror. The story begins to build in horror as the man is shown becoming less and less emotionally stable. The fright kicks in when the man tries to obtain his love… by any means necessary.

Midway through, the movie borrows from numerous genres to achieve a more empathetic look, and not a very pretty one. When a pianist named Stephen Orlac loses his hands in a train wreck, his wife brings him to Dr. Gogol, who was the only doctor she knew and trusted at the time with her husband’s hands. Little does she know that she herself is the obsessive interest of Gogol, and Gogol may not be the most trustworthy guy with the job after all?

Prior to the train incident in the film, Gogol obtains a headless corpse that was recently decapitated by guillotine. The decapitated man was once a knife thrower at the circus who had murderous instincts which led to his death sentence. The film brings a bit of science fiction into the story when Gogol decides to replace the pianist’s hands with those of the knife thrower. When the pianist is able to use his hands once again, his talent for the piano is relieved, thus replaced with a murderous urge of knife throwing.

Gogol tries to put the pianist in jail at all costs. When Gogol performs the surgery on the pianist where he replaces the man’s hands for the knife throwers, he ends up keeping the pianists hands. He then goes out and commits a violent crime against the pianist’s father leaving Orlac’s fingerprints at the scene of the crime. On top of that, Gogol convinces Orlac that he killed his father by making him believe that he’s losing touch with sanity. He does this by putting on a neck harness and pretending to be the guillotined knife thrower whose head Gogol replaced. Every element of the film adds up at the end forming a horrifying climax in which Orlac’s wife ends up trapped by Gogol in Gogol’s own home.

Though it may look like Child's Play by today’s standards; the film was considered fairly disturbing in its day and was banned from numerous countries, while many other countries cut scenes of death out of the film. If looked at the right way, Mad Love can be one of the most emotionally horrifying films ever made, and the story carries much more emotional depth than a typical horror film.

Mad Love was regretfully the last directorial effort of Karl Freund, who if given a chance, could have sealed his spot as one of the most capable horror filmmakers of his day. Mad Love is often referred to as one of the greatest horror films of the 1930’s; I’ll take it a step further and say that Mad Love is one of the greatest horror films of all time.

The Omega Man (1971)
http://i44.tinypic.com/x4rq4p.jpg
I Am Legend is a science fiction horror novel written by Richard Matheson. The novel has spawned four notable films to date; among those films is 1964’s The Last Man on Earth starring Vincent Price (which has since become a classic forgotten horror gem), 1971’s The Omega Man starring Charlton Heston, 2007’s I Am Legend starring Will Smith (which is the most famous version of the bunch), and a direct to video flick entitled I Am Omega that was released around the same time as the 2007 film, obviously put out to garner money and build off the success of the ’07 version . This review is going to focus on what is perhaps the second most famous of those films, The Omega Man.

The film opens with a shot of Robert Neville (played by Charlton Heston) cruising down the street in his car. But, everything is so plain, and a sense of something wrong is quickly established once Neville fires at a shadow lurking in a building window. It is revealed that Neville is the last man on earth, but we quickly find out that he is not alone in the quiet world that he inhabits. Following him, and coming out only in the dark, are beings infected with the virus that wiped out the rest of humanity. These beings want to punish Neville for living while they are slowly dying.

Neville seems like a normal guy when the lights are turned on, but when the sun goes down we find out how dangerous a threat he poses to the infected, which is a strong point in the film. In any typical horror film working with this sort of scenario, the protagonist would be the hunted and the primary danger would be whatever is hunting him. But, Neville poses just as much danger to the hunters as they pose to him. Neville has killed many of them in the past, and unless they can get rid of him, they know that he will kill more.

As the film progresses, the infected group manages to capture Neville. They don’t want anything from him other than to kill him. But, of course they don’t kill him right away; they decide to sacrifice him where every one of them can gather to witness Neville’s death. The sacrifice is set with a ceremony, and of course, Neville escapes. Neville then finds out that he is not the only human left on Earth after all. This happens when a man comes out of the blue and frees him from his sacrificial restraints, fighting off infected beings in the process. Soon after, a woman pulls up in a motorcycle and drives Neville to freedom.

The two humans bring Neville to their home, where there are more people all living amongst each other. Among them is a sick boy, which is slowly becoming infected with the lethal virus. After some research, Neville finds out that his blood is a cure for the disease and manages to save the boy by injecting him with his blood.

A question of morality is brought up when the cured boy asks him to save the rest of the infected. Neville refuses, claiming that they are homicidal maniacs; that an attempt to save them would be a risk far too great. The boy persists and proceeds to go and tell the infected about the cure that consists of Neville’s blood.

The ending tries to spark some emotion, but due to the aggressive tone of the rest of the film, it fails. Neville is built up to be a very likable main character and a hero at the end, but in an obvious attempt to throw action into the picture, he is shown killing villains with ease throughout the rest of the film. All of this builds up to an ending that could have worked much better. The ending would have even had a chance of being great if the rest of the film had focused on Neville’s character instead of unnecessary action.

A few illogical mistakes tone the film’s quality down a few notches. Much of the film doesn’t focus on logical situations, but attempts to make Heston look like a supreme badass. This all happens within a film completely drenched with bad dialogue and laughable one-liners.

The Omega Man is a classic sci-fi thriller that would fit very well in a list of notable science fiction films. Unfortunately, it packs just enough hammy acting, cheesy one-liners, and gratuitous gunfire to fit in a list of cheesy 70’s flicks as well. Even with everything that does work with the film, there is too much wrong to call it a great or even a good movie. What it does do is entertain, and with that strong point, it can be a very, very fun movie to watch.

Dead of Night (1945)
http://i30.tinypic.com/jrbeo0.jpg
Dead of Night is a series of short horror stories told back to back from the perspective of a room full of strangers that are in a horror story themselves. Sounds boring and perhaps even a bit incoherent, but it is anything but. The film captivates, chills, and above all, entertains.

Before any of the stories are told, the film follows Walter Craig, an architect looking for work at a farmhouse located in the country. Upon his arrival at the hope of a job, he meets up with a group of strangers, the same strangers that have been haunting his recurring nightmares.

When everyone at the home attempts to greet him, he gets the distinct feeling that he’s been there before. Not until he sees everyone sitting quaintly in a room does he trace his memories back to his dreams. The whole film builds tension with a simple little feeling, the feeling that something is going to go terribly wrong. Craig tells the strangers of his nightmare’s and everyone tries to comfort him as he seems a bit shaken up, but after Craig predicts an unexpected event from his dream, the strangers begin to believe him and tell horror stories of their own.

The film is predominantly set in a single room, but it explores the stranger’s memories of terror through their eyes of time. Of course the film reenacts the stories on the screen to capture the full effect, and the stories that are told are every bit as haunting, original and at times even amusing as an audience would hope for.

All the events in the film lead up to a truly chilling climactic twist well ahead of its time. The viewer is left with a few unanswered questions at the end. This works for the better and helps the viewer capture the films effect to the fullest. Films that tell horror anthologies are rare. Hell, films that that tell regular anthologies are rare, and Dead of Night is certainly up there with the best. Not only that, Dead of Night is a recurring horror story that carries enough chills to be ranked among the greatest British thrillers ever made.

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

This is the first time I've noticed this thread. Those are some amazing reviews. Great work! Two thumbs up for watching my man Charles Bronson. I love him so. I like that you're checking out a lot of older films. Again, great work, and keep them coming. :)

Hangover Square (1945)
http://i31.tinypic.com/11i1t8m.jpg

Hangover Square opens with the murder of an unknown man, predominantly shown in first person view from the eyes of the killer. Quickly after the victim’s lifeless body is shown on the floor, the building containing the victim and the killer begins to catch fire. At this point, the interior of the building is still shown from the killer’s point of view and we are able to witness his escape from the fire, but not his face. The killer gets out of the building unharmed while the murdered man’s body burns.

The next scene reveals a man walking down the street carrying a look that would make you think he’s just seen a ghost. The man walks home in a daze making him unaware of his surroundings, and he runs into numerous people in the middle of the street bringing out a question of the man’s well-being. The man finally makes it home sporting a battered, bloody head wound, a knife in his coat pocket, and blood stains on his coat. The film soon reveals that the man has blacked out and cannot remember anything from earlier that night apart from his location, which turns out to be the same location of the aforementioned murder and burned down building.

With this chilling opening the audience is introduced to George Harvey Bone. Bone is a nice, innocent looking man, and a promising musician that suffers from black outs whenever he hears cacophony. Of course Bone himself is unaware that he turns mentally unstable when he has these black outs, and everyone he confronts about them are quick to dismiss them as no big deal. As time progresses, the audience is made fully aware that the black outs surely do become a big deal.

A little later down the line, Bone meets Netta Longdon, a music hall dancer that attempts to use George for his talents in music. As Netta’s intent with George begins to show, George’s black outs become darker than ever, and George is still unaware of what they might mean.

George falls in love with Netta, and later in her home, asks her to marry him. Netta admits that she is scheduled to marry someone else. Netta’s fiancé then shows up to greet George. In a fit of rage George attacks him and leaves Netta’s home. Later that night, George experiences the most tenebrous, disquieting, and darkest black out that he’s ever had. The next day it is exposed that Netta has disappeared. All of the above leads to an unforgettable climax that rivals anything on display in some of the most bone chilling endings ever put on film.

George Harvey Bone is played by Laird Cregar. Sadly, Cregar passed away before the film’s release and Hangover Square contains his final performance. Cregar does deliver one helluva performance that shows that if he had lived, he could have given guys like Vincent Price a run for their money.

The film also features fantastic camera work and an awesome score put forth by Bernard Hermann. Hermann’s main tune for Hangover Square is one of the creepiest themes you’ll ever hear, and the music score was credited by Stephen Sondheim as an inspiration for his famous musical, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. In many parts of the Sweeney Todd score, the inspiration from Hangover Square is apparent.

Hangover Square is a very rare flick to come by these days. There are plenty of nice little forgotten gems from the horror genre that were released in the 30’s and 40’s, but Hangover Square isn’t one of them. No, Hangover Square isn’t merely a gem, it’s a forgotten masterpiece.
+

Mean Streets (1973)
http://i26.tinypic.com/51v5v5.jpg
Mean Streets is one of most aptly titled films you’ll ever come across. It follows more than one character, yet focuses principally on Charlie (played by Harvey Keitel), the small time wiseguy who is gradually becoming a more esteemed associate of the local mob as the days go by.

Most of the film, particularly the first half, doesn’t concentrate on any specific storyline other than how tough it is living in the streets of “Little Italy” located in New York. Throughout most of the picture, Charlie is shown dealing with minor problems around the city. That is until the real focus of the film comes into full view primarily during the final half hour.

In one of the opening scenes, we are introduced to three of Charlie’s friends; Tony, Michael, and Johnny Boy. Tony and Michael are faithful members of the mob community, but Johnny Boy is a naive and irresponsible gambler that continues to get in bigger and bigger with his debt owed to some loan sharks.

Charlie tries his hardest to stick up for Johnny Boy, and makes an effort to protect him from the sharks, but Jonny’s capricious ways lead him into bigger trouble than either character could have imagined. As the minutes start to add up, the danger that Johnny gets himself in proliferates.

One thing that the film is not lacking is grit, and the profuse amount of it feels terribly real. Something that the film’s director, Martin Scorsese, does like no other is bring grimy streets to life, and he does it just as well as ever with Mean Streets.

By the end of the film, the viewer is sure to remember the aftermath of Johnny Boy and Charlie’s attempted escape from the loan sharks. Mean Streets leaves a very memorable impact. It is a taut, rigid, and tense crime drama that is not to be missed.
+

French Connection II (1975)
http://i28.tinypic.com/21on2ok.jpg
Rarely are there sequels (especially those of action films or crime thrillers) that actually turn out to be good. French Connection II, the one I’m going to discuss here, is one of the best.

The film most likely wouldn’t be as enjoyable to those who haven’t seen the first. It takes place where the original “French Connection” left off, and it follows the famous hard-nosed cop “Popeye” Doyle as he arrives in France. It is brought to the viewer’s attention that Doyle has come to France in pursuit of Alain Charnier, the infamous drug smuggler that evaded capture in the first film.

Upon arrival, Doyle is looked down upon by Barthélémy, the man he has to take orders from. In one of the opening sequences, Doyle and Barthélémy run to run into some action. With guns blazing from every direction, Doyle sees one of the culprits fleeing the scene and proceeds to chase after him. After a satisfyingly intense chase scene, Doyle catches up and gives the culprit a severe beating.

The culprit is soon revealed to be an undercover police officer. Barthélémy becomes extremely strict with Doyle from this point on, and their animosity for one another plays a big part in the rest of the film.

But, for the first 30 minutes or so, the acrimony between Doyle and Barthélémy is just meant to be looked at as a side story. The real storyline revolves around Doyle attempting to take down Charnier. A good ways into the story, Charnier finds out about Doyle and gets some men to capture him. He then interrogates him in an attempt to gain information about what the police know about him and his drug smuggling.

After two weeks of drugging and interrogating Doyle, Charnier’s men dump him on the street right in front of the police and quickly drive off. Doyle is nurtured back to health, but after two weeks of being drugged, he develops an addiction. The police force him to go “cold turkey.” In the sequence that Doyle does go cold turkey, he is marvelously portrayed by Gene Hackman with a performance that should have earned him another OSCAR nomination for his reprisal of the character.

But, the best part of the film doesn’t come from the shoot-outs, the cold turkey scene, or the chase scenes; to this viewer, the film’s climax is without a doubt the ending. The final few seconds of the picture are some of the most satisfying you’ll ever see, and they are sure to leave a memorable impact.

French Connection II isn’t an action movie or a drama. It’s a blend of both and it works extremely well at building intensity, conjuring humor, and sparking emotion. The inclusions of numerous genres make it one hell of a powerful film, and one of the most underrated of the 70’s.

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

Awesomely honest review. You didn't mention it but I would have hoped that somehow I was the one to get you to watch it. The only thing I would "ding" you for is that the brilliant ending should raise it to a full-on . :cool: Your photo even shows the scene five seconds before the ending. :)

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

Hey! Nice to see some love for this one, doesn't get enough attention imo

I've never been able to get into the French Connection films, but I doubt that comes as much of a suprise to you guys. :p

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

Are you speaking as the erudite Brain Gremlin or some other way?

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

Oh, I daren't speak for the Brain Gremlin.

Magic (1978)
http://i28.tinypic.com/2wg5111.jpg
Magic is a 1978 psychological suspense film directed by Richard Attenborough. Since its release, the picture has become a forgotten gem that contains plenty of scares, surprises, and tension to keep you on the edge of your seat. But, beneath the typical look of a psychological thriller lies a deeply unsettling dramatic horror film.

From the cover art, it looks like another one of those supernatural killer doll movies, but it’s not. It’s the story of a man losing his sanity and not being able to control his conscience. The film is about a killer mind rather than a killer doll.

In the opening scene, a magician named Corky is shown through flashbacks doing his magic routine in front of an audience that could care less. Frustrated with the audience’s disrespectfulness, Corky loses his cool and begins yelling at the audience. With this, we are able to establish that Corky is a failed magician desperate for success.

The next scene takes place in the near future, and Corky is shown climbing his way to the top as a magician. We are then introduced to Ben Greene (a talent agent who’s interested in Corky) waiting for Corky’s act. Corky begins his act, an act that looks like a typical magic show until Corky introduces the audience to Fats, the effervescent, vulgar-mouthed puppet that quickly becomes the corner stone of Corky’s show.

The talent agent, Ben Greene, gets in touch with Corky and tells him about his interest in Corky’s act. The two get together and discuss plans of what look like sure-to-be plans of a successful future for Corky on television. But, Corky becomes overwhelmed with the thought of failing the required physical and is sent in panic.

He flees the city to stay in a resort far away from home. The resort happens to be run by his former love, a married woman named Peggy Ann Snow. A few days after the two confront each other, they fall back in love. Peggy says that she is no longer in love with her husband, and she agrees to run away with Corky. As this happens, we are able to see that Corky has two personalities. His mental stability grows weaker and weaker as he is shown having conversations with Fats, his dummy.

The film gradually evolves from a love story into a tale of madness, murder, and insanity. Greene, Corky’s talent agent eventually finds out where Corky is staying. As he approaches Corky’s room in order to confront him, he sees Corky yelling at his doll. Already convinced of Corky’s insanity, Greene threatens to find mental help for Corky. In a fit of rage, Corky attacks Greene, killing him. He then dumps the body in the lake next to the resort.

The next day, Peggy’s husband, Duke, returns to the resort. Duke arrives with strong suspicions of Peggy’s affair with Corky. Duke asks Corky to go fishing with him in the lake next to the resort. Corky accepts. When they are both on the boat, Duke makes a teary confession that he’s losing his marriage and he wants his wife to love him again. This is sidetracked when Duke sees what looks to be a body washed up on the shore.

In addition to a riveting murder story, the picture contains an atmospherically creepy soundtrack by Jerry Goldsmith and impressive direction from Richard Attenborough. But, the shining light of the picture is Anthony Hopkins, who portrays Corky fantastically. Magic isn’t a typical scare film; it packs plenty of genuinely suspenseful moments and a surprising abundance of emotional connection to the main character.
-

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

I think this film has scared more people that I know, than any other horror film. It's a very creepy film. I know people who's unease with/fear of dolls is a direct result of seeing this film.

Nightmare Alley (1947)
http://i25.tinypic.com/2cx68mv.jpg
Nightmare Alley is one of those pictures that I wish had more of a reputation. It is one of those overlooked masterpieces that I’m more than proud to call a personal favorite. If you haven’t seen the movie, do yourself a favor by running out and buying it. It’s that good, and nothing that I’m going to write in this review will truly do it justice.

Nightmare Alley is also one of those horror flicks that rely almost solely on thought to provide anything remotely close to a scare. But, when one does stop to think about this film, it can be one of the most harrowing pieces of cinema ever made. It’s about the rise and fall of a selfish man that we, the audience, cannot help but like. It tells the story of a character that lacks the notable traits of any normal protagonist, but is still one that we cannot help but sympathize with.

It’s about a man named Stan Carlisle, a carnie. At the circus, Carlisle works with a fake mind reader named Zeena, and Carlisle sees a way out of the crummy lifestyle that he’s living. His plan: to present a different sort of phony mind reading act where it’s liable to get realized, but he needs Zeena in order to do that. Unfortunately, Zeena is far too attached to her alcoholic husband Pete to leave him behind for what may be a path to success.

After an unlikely and completely accidental occurrence, Pete winds up dead, and Stan Carlisle is at fault. Fortunately for Stan, no one knows that he is to blame for the accident, and Stan doesn’t want anyone to know; it would be sure to foil the plans he has with Zeena. At this point we are given a hint of Stan’s somewhat selfish ways, but we empathize with his situation, and the rest of the film makes him out to be the good guy.

Zeena and Stan end up having a quarrel that costs them their friendship. But before that happens, Stan and another circus girl named Molly end up learning a new sort of phony mind-reading trick from Zeena. A new sort of mind-reading trick that is sure to make them a helluva lot of money if it is used correctly. So, Stan runs off with Molly in high hopes of using the trick for their own success.

A little later down the line, Stan is shown gradually rising to the top with his mind reading act. He makes his act a very popular one, and this marks the rise of Stan Carlisle. But the film is about the rise and fall of Stan Carlisle, and there is much more to it than what I just described. Carlisle ends up setting his ambitions too high, and they end up burning him. Tyrone Power plays Carlisle, and his performance is riveting.

Like I stated beforehand, Nightmare Alley is somewhat of a horror film, but it’s also a powerful drama laced with an incredibly dark film-noir feeling, and it would be a challenge to find a film from the 1940’s that’s as dark as Nightmare Alley. It’s not the setting or characters that make it so grim though. The honors for providing the picture with such unrelenting darkness would go to the tone, the noir, and the haunting story of a man’s downfall. Once it is watched, it is not soon forgotten.
+

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

I have been enjoying reading your reviews mate keep them coming:yup:

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
http://i28.tinypic.com/2jdgjm9.jpg
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a very well-known and highly esteemed story whether it is in film or literature. I assume that most of you reading this already know the basic plot line; a scientist develops a formula that splits his personality in two, creating a good and an evil side of him; Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

To me, the 1930’s are not only the best years that the horror genre has seen, but some of the best that cinema in general has seen. For me to say that the 1931 version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is one of the decades best is saying a lot. This film is about expressing one’s impulses, guilty as they may be. It’s about the duality of a man’s mind, and the battle that he has fighting his evil side with his good.

This version is often thought to be the best adaption of Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic short novel. It’s strange that the version that is so often thought to be the best is beginning to turn into an obscure film, especially when its title is as famous as “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.” This semi-obscure masterpiece certainly does deserve much more recognition than it currently receives.

At the beginning of the picture, we are shown the famous scientist named Dr. Jekyll giving a speech about how he believes that the soul may actually carry two personalities; a man’s good side and a man’s bad side. Following his speech, he gets looked down upon for making such foolish remarks. But, Jekyll is persistent, and he is determined to prove everyone else wrong.

As the story goes, Jekyll develops a strange fluid that is proof itself that what he said in his previous speech is true. When he drinks the fluid, he turns into a different person, a person that’s not entirely human, Mr. Hyde.

Before he drinks the fluid for the first time, we are made aware of Jekyll’s seriousness when he hesitates and then stops to write a death note. With this, we are also made aware of Jekyll’s strong dedication of his work; we are shown that he’s willing to die in order to test his theory. What seems to be dedication early on turns into a vice later.

The whole sequence leading up to him drinking the fluid is shot from Jekyll’s point of view. During the transformation, Jekyll’s face turns unusually pale, and it’s just a taste of how creepy the film soon gets. We are then shown a significantly harrowing nightmare style sequence. When he awakes as Hyde, the camera is still in first person view, not immediately showing the audience the radical changes that Jekyll has gone through. When the camera that is serving as Jekyll/Hyde’s eyes begins to move towards a mirror, our nerves are already worked up from the nightmare sequence. So, when Hyde’s face abruptly appears before the mirror, we are supposed to feel extremely startled.

The second transformation is shown in full detail, and though the effects that were used are dated now, the sequence still can leave a memorable impact.

After his second transformation, Hyde goes wandering around the streets of foggy old nighttime 18th century London. Hyde prowls the streets and causes trouble wherever he can. A young woman then catches his eye, and he seeks out the young woman with a plan of terrorizing her. The woman happens to be someone that he had briefly encountered earlier as Jekyll.

At first glance the woman is shy of Hyde’s bizarre looks and she attempts to leave, but Hyde shows his dominance by not allowing it. Hyde and the girls confrontation becomes a vital part of the storyline later on in the picture.

Even though Hyde looks like some sort of ridiculously strange type of ape in the picture, he still manages to frighten. Hyde would probably be unintentionally silly with his over the top make up if his portrayal weren’t so disturbing. Fredric March plays Jekyll and Hyde, and he gives a great leading performance, a performance that got him in a tie for best actor at the Academy Awards that year.

This film is often recognized as one of the horror genre’s all-time greats. It’s a must see for any serious horror fan or anyone exploring the best of what the genre has to offer. When Mr. Hyde is doing his intimidating act in one scene of the film, he says “I’ll show you what horror means.” This film does exactly that.
http://i27.tinypic.com/15q3ntw.png

The Time of Their Lives (1946)
http://i29.tinypic.com/8vueu0.jpg
In their careers together, Abbot and Costello made around 35 films. As a big A&C fan myself, I can confidently say that none of them were as great as The Time of Their Lives; one of the most charming, original, funny, and erroneously overlooked films of all time.

It’s about two people wrongly accused of being traitors during the revolutionary war. Their names are Horatio Prim and Melody Allen, and they were both shot, killed, and dumped at the bottom of a well after facing the unjust accusation of being traitors.

Soon after, the two wake up near the well and discover that they’ve become ghosts condemned to spend an eternity around the place they were killed. Horatio, one of the ghosts, has proof that he is not a traitor. The proof is a letter written by George Washington himself, and the letter is hidden somewhere in the house next to the well that Horatio and Melody have been condemned to. Their plan to go in and retrieve the letter is then tarnished when the house ends up being burned down.

Years go by and the two still find themselves condemned and wrongly labeled as traitors. That is until the house next to the well gets rebuilt and has everything that was previously burned down in the fire refurbished; and now that the house is up again, the two ghosts plan to go in and look for the letter and prove their innocence.

On the way to finding the note, creativity kicks in. A couple that are planning to move into the house decide to stay in it a night and test it out. Later, when they are convinced that there could be a ghostly presence, they decide to stay a little longer in order to investigate. The real fun begins when the people in the house begin to understand that the ghosts are in need of their help.

Strangely enough, Abbott and Costello don’t have much screen time together in this film, but the sequences that do feature the two together are hilarious.

Forget everything else that you’ve seen from the famous comedic duo for a minute (if you have seen anything from them), because it would be a mistake to compare this picture to anything else that they’ve appeared in. Forget the fact that the guy who directed it filmed eight Abbott and Costello films following this one; because The Time of Their Lives is not your run of the mill A&C comedy. It’s an example of storytelling and filmmaking at its finest, and it’s something that fans and non-fans of A&C should be able to equally enjoy.

The Time of Their Lives is one of my two fave A&C flicks, along with Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. It's not as manic as most of their films, but it does have a solid plot, good production values and unique special effects.

I enjoy reading this thread because it reminds me of some good films I haven't seen for years. (I've got Nightmare Alley and Magic at the top of my queue.) Too bad it appears that people pay less attention to the reviews of the older films. I was wondering though about Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. I own that DVD in a two-disc pack which also comes with the 1941 Spencer Tracy version. I was wondering if you've seen that one and what you think of it, especially that scene where what appears to be naked Lana Turner and Ingrid Bergman are the horses pulling Mr. Hyde's "chariot".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWL9ViOQ6ok

Meet Frankenstein was my favorite A&C flick for the longest time, and it's probably the most common choice among fans for best. I think it's a great contender for the greatest scare-comedy ever made as well.

The Tracy version would be my favorite Jekyll and Hyde picture behind the '31 version. Even though I think it starts out a tad slow, when the intensity kicks in, the film showcases an impressive lead performance and some nice cinematography. The sequence you posted above is actually where I thought the intensity started to pick up.

... and thanks for the compliment.

The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog (1927)
http://i28.tinypic.com/2dvmnv4.jpg
Perhaps Alfred Hitchcock’s first great film, The Lodger is something of a landmark for the crime thriller breed, and it carries an extra dose of Gothic noir and horror. It has since been remade four times and has inspired countless other films in its genre.

It tells the story of serial killer infamously labeled as “The Avenger.” The film isn’t really about the serial killer himself, but the impact he has on those that live around his murders, and the paranoia that his murders bring to London’s citizens. The picture opens with a scene of murder, and it is brought to our attention that the murderer shields half of his face with a scarf to keep his identity unknown.

In the proceeding scene, a peculiar young man arrives at the front door of Mr. and Mrs. Buntings’ house with the request of renting a room. After assuring his stay by paying a month’s rent in advance, the lodger shows just how peculiar he can be. He turns over pictures that the Buntings hung on their walls claiming that he doesn’t like them, he goes out in the middle of the night careful not to make any noise, and he acts in an extremely peculiar way that gives the landlady and her husband terrible suspicions of the young man.

The Lodger becomes attracted to the Buntings’ daughter, but with the Buntings’ new heightened suspicions, they will see to it that their daughter doesn’t become involved with the man. This proves to be a vital part of the story later on.

The Lodger is a great film, but it does have a few flaws. The most discernible thing that the picture could do without is the ending. Instead of giving the audience what they have been expecting for the entire film, the ending offers a cheap and predictable twist that disappoints. Fortunately, the rest of the film easily makes up for the minor letdown.

The picture is very atmospheric. Even for a film released in 1927, the streets of London carry a haunting aura with them, and the ghastly mood is just tuned finer with the knowledge that there is a killer walking freely among the streets.

This is one of Alfred Hitchcock’s earliest films, and his involvement isn’t too apparent. The master of suspense works on the audiences suspicions in this one, and the intent of the film is to frighten, as well as to work the viewer’s nerves, but the true suspense in the film is absent until the ending. The murders are not shown in detail and the fright comes primarily from the viewer’s thought.

The leading performance stands out among the rest bringing a classic villain to the screen, and the rest of the characters are ones that succeed in making you care for them; even the main character, the one that is thought to be the murderer, is likable. The Lodger is as thought provoking as mysteries get, as spooky as psychological chillers get, and as good as movies get.
+

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

Good review, Re93.

It's been ages since I saw The Lodger, but I think that I'd agree with everything you said about it. The only thing I'd add is that the ending was the studios' idea. Hitchcock's original intent was the leave it open to the viewer as to whether the lodger was the killer or not.

Séance on a Wet Afternoon (1964)

Part crime film, part thriller, and part psychological drama, Séance on a Wet Afternoon could easily be ranked among the best of any of its genres. It’s a film that’s as haunting as it is suspenseful and powerful as it is psychologically thrilling.

In the beginning of the film, we are introduced to Myra Savage, a supposed psychic that lives in London; a very nice woman that has plans to get her and her husband rich. Her plans are to have her husband kidnap a child with wealthy parents. Once they do that, she is going to demand a large amount of money from the parents for the return of the child.

There is one preeminently intriguing thing about this picture and it’s not the kidnapping, but the two main characters. Myra Savage remains amicable, collected, and confident throughout most of the film while her husband, Billy Savage, seems too worked up on his nerves to go through with the plan most of the time. The reason he does go through with it is not for any amount of money, but for the sole reason of pleasing his wife.

The most chilling thing about Myra Savage is her overwhelming calmness, even when her plan goes awry. She presents her morbid thoughts to her husband with such tranquility that it’s difficult for the viewer not to feel a chill up his or her spine while watching it.

Kim Stanley plays Myra Savage in a performance that received an Academy Award nomination. Richard Attenborough is equally as good as her paranoid, nervous, and apprehensive husband. On top of those two fantastic performances the film has a soundtrack composed by John Barry that is able to bring suspense to the screen as well as it’s able to darken the tone of the picture.

Séance on a Wet Afternoon is relatively unknown among most movie-goers, but that shouldn’t stop anyone from seeing it. It’s not only one of the best films ever made, but a fantastic, dark, and gripping tale of composed human insanity, drama, and suspense.

Bedlam (1946)
http://i37.tinypic.com/28an7ki.jpg
Bedlam is one of the capital motion pictures of 1940’s horror, and one of the best examples of what one can achieve by combining the horror genre with film-noir to make something spooky yet poignant.

It’s about a young woman named Nell Bowen that expresses interest in finding out how the St. Mary’s of Bethlehem Insane Asylum (Bedlam) is run. When she sees that Master George Sims treats the patients like animals, her disgust encourages her to take a stand against the atrocious way that the patients are treated.

But, what she isn’t aware of is how cruel Master Sims can actually be. Her stand against his ways of running the asylum proves to be a mistake once he has her declared insane and thrown in the asylum with all the rest of the patients.

To Master Sims’ abhorrence, Nell Bowen refuses to be intimidated by the deranged mental patients and surprisingly attempts to aid them. The more she attempts to oppose Sims’ ways, the more Sims’ aversion of her increases, and Sims’ antipathy just becomes worse and increasingly harsh as the minutes add up.

The first half of the picture isn’t the best it could be, but it does successfully tell a story that only strengthens in a remarkable second half. The second half of the film is where the spooky atmosphere really kicks in, and when that happens the entire picture becomes incredibly morbid, and the morbidity helps a great deal by creating a surprisingly tragic and sympathetic ending.

It stars one of the genres most notable luminaries, Boris Karloff, in a villainous role that is likely one of the most sinister characters he has ever portrayed. If that bit of info won’t attract any classic horror fans, the fact that it was written and produced by the legendary Val Lewton surely will.

The Taking of Pelham 123(2009)
http://i33.tinypic.com/wstyqa.jpg
How typical does the trailer or poster of “The Taking of Pelham 123” look? Don’t let it fool you. At first sight, the movie could easily be called average or typical, but no mere average film carries suspense, action, and hostility as finely tuned as this one does. The review I’m about to write is predominantly about the new version, but I’m gonna spend a lot of time writing comparisons to the original.

For those who aren’t aware, “The Taking of Pelham 123” is a film about four heavily armed men seizing a New York Subway train, demanding a ransom of 10 million dollars. If they don’t get their wish inside an hour, they will begin to kill hostages. Each minute the ransom is late, a hostage dies.

The film is based both on a 1974 film and a novel of the same title. Perhaps the most obvious omission of the plot from this version that is included in the novel and classic film is the effect and mental stress that the train robbing has on people and police that are both involved and uninvolved with the robbery, but the film works with little left out details like that, and it works greatly.

There’s nothing wrong with the performances in the picture. John Travolta (who plays the lead villain “Ryder”) seems to be receiving quite a bit of criticism for his act; criticism that baffles me. When comparing his performance (even his character) to the original part played by Robert Shaw, it looks completely different. The main villain plays the most vital part in both films. The tone of the film is based on his actions, and while Shaw brought a calm and collect (while still thrilling) feeling to the first, Travolta brought an edgy character (and feeling) that is extremely convincing in letting the viewer know that he means business. The audience is meant to feel a sense of tension from Ryder, because he gives the feeling that he’s gonna blow his top any second, and when he does, it isn’t gonna be pretty.

The music, for the most part, sounds like a shoddy collaboration of lost beats from a hip-hop song with a few doses of hard rock music thrown in, but at times it blends in perfectly with the heightened awareness of the films characters to make a truly menacing tone that at times almost feels like it came out of The Shining. When Ryder does finally lose his cool in a few key points throughout the film, the aiding sound and music couldn’t be better, and you can cut the tension with a knife.

Denzel Washington turns in another one of the film’s fine performances, and he does well in convincing the audience that a seemingly average Joe can do something as unbelievable as take off in a high speed pursuit car-chase when the film is entering its ending. He plays a peaceful man, tied up in a messy situation, and brings a hero to the screen with his performance.

One thing that this film contains that your average thriller lacks is authenticity, or at least a feeling of it. Scott’s direction helps make the film feel more real than ever, with an extremely fast-paced attitude. Even car chases, crashes and gunfights seem realistic, which they so rarely do in Hollywood action films.

The film isn’t perfect though (and no one should expect it to be), it does have its share of flaws. It contains enough cheesy one-liners and annoying camera movement to look bad at points, but is easily made up with everything mentioned in the above paragraphs. Some instances lack decent script-writing and it shows, while at other times, the script seems absolutely fine bringing the film to a different level than its predecessor.

Some of the dialogue in the film seems all too contrived, taking away a little bit of the gritty realism that is brought to the screen so well at other points. It also differs greatly from both the original film and the novel in many points; a thing that doesn’t work very often, but works at building a sense of originality here.

The movie succeeds in creating its own mood instead of copying the tone of the original (something more remakes should concentrate on doing). The film is paced as fast as a machine gun; much of the style used wouldn’t work in the original, and vice-versa. Without seeming ridiculous, it adapts coherently to the story while bringing modern technological advances into the mix.

It’s hard to truly compare the two most famous adaptions of “Pelham 123” (1974 and 2009) because they are very different. The new version is a film that strays from both of its sources, while managing to stay faithful to them in the process, and is a great new adaption of John Godey’s novel as well as a great remake of Joseph Sargent’s original film. The original film brings a much more fun (yet suspenseful) adaption to the screen, while the tone of the remake seems so black it may stain your eyes.

I must have missed this thread. Great review of a cracking psychological horror film. True to what Mark said, this along with 'that' scene in Poltergeist has given me something of a phobia of dolls.

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

Have you seen one of the greatest British horror flicks ever (aside from The Innocents), and by that I mean Dead of Night? That one just might tip you over the edge... even now... :cool:

No, but I know there's a ventriloquist's dummy in that one too. My mum used to harp on about how creepy it was when I was a kid. I'll have to try and check it out. This why I didn't contribute to the '100 Horror Films' list; I just haven't seen enough of the old classics.

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

No, but you've seen enough of the alternative classics, so I say "Try to send in some more of your great flicks!" and don't sweat whether they're "weak". We're dealing with horror here. There are no weak answers, just some which very few people know about and SHOULD NOT keep them secret.

So, I've decided to dust this place off a bit and reclaim my review thread. Anyway, I don't know how long it'll be before I write another analysis, but I just wanted to show that I haven't completely abandoned this thread. And I do have one for the meantime:

Cure (1997)
http://i50.tinypic.com/2m3mdfd.jpg

Out of all the psychological horror films you would want to invest your time in, Cure is likely one of your best choices. Psychologically, it’s a harrowing film of the highest order, and it’s assuredly for those that want to be afraid of what a film implies rather than outright portrays.

It’s about a string of murders taking place in urban Japan. As it turns out, the murders all share the same mark, but have different perpetrators. Perpetrators that can’t recollect any incentive they may have had for murder. The plot thickens when Kenichi Takabe is assigned to the case. Takabe is the same depressed, somber detective you’ve probably seen a hundred times, but his bleak subtlety is rather a mask for his repressed anger and confusion, and the film conveys his conflicted personality well.

The cacophonic city incites an all-too similar atmosphere that resembles most cop thrillers of the 90’s, and Cure is most likely one of the flicks that was made to capitalize on the popularity of then recent films such as The Silence of the Lambs and Se7en (which has a very similar bleak style), but even with all of the typical detective thriller characteristics, it’s one of the most original serial killer films out there.

The atmosphere seems like an amalgam of Se7en and Eraserhead (without the weirdness). So, suffice it to say, the mood is an integral part of the film (maybe the most integral part of the film). In its own unorthodox way, this film is a masterpiece of atmosphere. The tone is exemplary of what a dark aura should feel, look and sound like, and it’s rarely crafted as superbly as it is here.

Something that may turn-off some viewers is that Cure constantly creates more questions as it plays along. More questions than answers as far as the psychological aspect of the picture is concerned. But it doesn’t attempt to explain itself much of the time. It’s not easily assimilated, but that’s where the originality is most apparent. In conclusion, all of the film’s questions merge, creating a vast sense of ambiguity. By the ending, the film seems like a riddle left for the audience to solve. And somehow it does this without seeming overtly confusing or surreal.

I don’t want this review to come across as misleading though. Cure isn’t the greatest film of its kind. I’d hesitate to even call the overall result “great.” But for those that appreciate similar slow-paced exercises in genre filmmaking, Cure can be one hell of an entertaining movie.

+

Dust Devil (1992)
http://i49.tinypic.com/dpznyq.jpg

Dust Devil is a film that might’ve been too complex for its own good when it was released. It’s a spiritual film that conveys its messages roughly through a creature feature, which is probably why most people that saw it upon release overlooked its undertones. Also because underneath all of its blood and tension, the film’s deeper meaning is too difficult to decipher, but either way you look at it, it can turn out to be a great experience.

It wasn’t very well-known when it was released, and it continues to fade into obscurity as the years fly by. But, it’s a film that, if more widely regarded, would most likely draw in quite a cult following.

It’s a horror film to be blunt, but it’s also quite a genre-bender when you take into account all of the faint little textures it weaves. Take the Morricone-esque score, for instance, filmed with a similar Leone-esque style and you have a classic homage to the spaghetti western. That combined with the arrangement of drama, detective mystery, and Lynchian surrealism gives you a film that defies any true classification.

It’s about a woman, who decides to flee her husband in an attempt to escape a life that she can’t tolerate anymore. While on the road, she picks up an equivocal hitch-hiker. As it turns out, the hitch-hiker is actually a soul-sucking demon that enjoys decimating hopeless beings and practicing witchcraft in his spare time. Even as over-the-top as it may sound, when spread over 100 or so minutes, it becomes a strong point. Also, with a unique execution, the plot easily transcends any given impression by a brief synopsis.

The film is set in the desert of Africa, and the setting’s beauty radiates as much as feasible within a camera lens. The setting at night, combined with some stunning cinematography, conjure up a dreamlike quality for the film, and make for some unforgettably nightmarish sequences.

The only two recognizable low-points lie in the dialogue and acting, and they’re both mixed bags anyway. The dialogue is beautifully written in some sequences (namely the narration), while laughable in others. And overall, the acting is sub-standard at best, with high and low points throughout. Still, when you consider how easy it is to get lost in the direction of the movie, those two gripes are easily overlooked.

Dust Devil may be an acquired taste, but if you can watch it with the right mindset, it’s easy to see it as one of the most erroneously underrated and overlooked films of the 90’s (perhaps even transcendent of that label). Dust Devil stands out among a rare breed: the artful horror film; and if that label sounds appealing, I recommend this film highly. And on a slightly different note: The final cut is the best version of this film.

The Wolfman (2010)
http://i50.tinypic.com/se2dsp.jpg
It puts its own style over substance to be sure, but when the style is crafted as beautifully as it is here, it’s enough to suffice. The plot isn’t the best it could have been, but if you’re aware enough of the type of film you’re watching, it can provide a tremendous amount of entertainment in its two hour run-time.

Tony Hopkins gives the best performance in the film, but the rest of the cast fulfils their duty in bringing solid characters to the screen (there’s even a nice little cameo from Max Von Sydow, depending on which version you watch). Add a booming, orchestral score composed by Danny Elfman, remarkable cinematography, and impressive set design, and the film’s technical grandeur becomes apparent.

It does get over-played at times, but that’s to be expected. The film features top of the line make-up effects, yet it’s still smothered with unnecessary and ineffective CGI, and could’ve turned into a typical effects splattered creature feature if not for its other peaks.

The suspense is competently done most of the time, but it does get too hectic at times, and when it does, the focus of the action goes ballistic (namely in the out-of-place ending fight scene), and the tension slips in the process. Nonetheless, some of the film’s splendor does lie in its suspense.

Even though its roots lie in classic horror, its direction is actually more reminiscent of the 90’s. It’s overly melodramatic, but if you don’t let the sappy predictability become too bothersome, it’s not only visually enthralling, but a genuinely good movie.

Of course, the film isn’t for everyone. I’ve actually read more negative criticism on it than positive, but if you liked the look of the ads, or if you’re a fan of gothic horror, this should be more than satisfying. Don’t let my gripes fool you, I loved it.

-

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

So is this, as I suspected, a wolfman/werewolf version of Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula? That's what it looked like it was going to be, to me, judging by the trailers I saw. A campy, horror, period romp. Is that close, in your opinion?

Close indeed. I'd say it's more reminiscent of Sleepy Hollow though.

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

Ah, ok. Thanks for that, Re93. :)

Smart Money (1931)
http://i25.tinypic.com/2h6tsmw.jpg

Smart Money may not be a very memorable film, as it continues to become more and more of a lost gem, but it was a film much ahead of it’s time. Surprisingly, for a movie made only a few years following the silent era, it attempts to portray its story as mellow and down to earth as possible. It does this successfully with realistic characterizations and a lack of background music until its conclusion.

It’s about an uncommonly skilled poker player named Nick (played by Robinson) who discovers the world of underground gambling. After getting conned his first time playing it big, he surmises a plan that eventually takes him to the top of the underground gambling racket. But, with all of his gained success and wealth, comes a far too cocky attitude liable to get him in trouble one way or another. That and his weakness for pretty blondes prove to be his downfall.

It doesn’t have an abundance of stars, but the cast is still the only notable reputation that the film has. It’s known as the only feature that the two top-tier 30’s Gangster film icons Edward G. Robinson and James Cagney have appeared in together. Even though Smart Money isn’t the typical type of crime film that both stars were known for, their presence alone should be a turn-on for any classic film fan. And be sure to look out for a pre-Frankenstein Boris Karloff in a small role.

As I mention above, it's not the typical crime film that Cagney or Robinson were known for. At first glance, it may seem watered down, but it just plays out a more pragmatic point of view of criminals than most Hollywood crime films. Most of the gangsters aren't portrayed as tough guys or psychopaths, but mundane human beings. That isn't an entirely positive remark however. The picture may seem too mundane to some.

Smart Money may not be a great film, but it is a pretty good one, despite the blatant racism and sexism it depicts. It’s not a film merely worth watching because of its stars either. It has plenty of substance, and it’s a fine way to pass the time for any classic crime fan.

Predators (2010)
http://i25.tinypic.com/2dwgbo1.jpg

Predators starts off with numerous people being parachuted to a destination unknown to them. As they interact and ponder over their whereabouts, they begin uncovering clues as to where they are, eventually discovering that they have been deliberately placed on an alien planet to serve as prey for a much more technologically advanced species.

Depending on how it’s looked at, the film may or may not come across as creatively written. It’s just about what anyone would anticipate from a film of its sort. The plot is considerably strong enough to support it. However, the dialogue holds it down at times. Though that gripe is easily dismissible considering how well each cast member plays their part.

Any premature naysayers of the films cast should suspend their reluctance. Adrian Brody shows us his surprising versatility by playing a convincing brute, and Lawrence Fishburne hits the nail on the head with his performance as a crazed ruffian, despite having a part that wasn’t much more than a large cameo.

Despite any advertising scheme that the film may have put out, the action is not the most eminent aspect of the film. Though the action sequences are satisfactory; they aren’t the biggest piece of the picture. The most integral part of the film is its meticulous construction of suspense. And the expertly applied tension to most of its suspense sequences is the reason that the film is worth seeing.

It isn’t nearly as good as the first flick, but considering that it was written and directed by names virtually unknown, it’s doubtful that many expected it to be. It is, however, very worthy of bearing the “Predator” label. And following the AVP films, it’s a breath of fresh air.

Though it does give a tip of the hat to its source plenty of times throughout, it is certainly not a remake, but calling it a sequel or prequel isn’t entirely accurate either. What it unmistakably is, is a worthy companion piece to its predecessor. “Predators” seems like a return to form for the sci-fi horror genre as well as its best and most ambitious contribution in years.


-

Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (1992)
http://i27.tinypic.com/w2jeyt.jpg

I’ll start off by saying that I’m not familiar with the television series, and by watching this film prequel first I contravened what most fans of the TV series would recommend. Apparently, knowing the series before watching the film is the best way to go. So, maybe it would be rightfully considered high praise for me to say that I loved Fire Walk with Me without having any prior Twin Peaks knowledge.

If there is anything I’ve learned about Twin Peaks from watching this though, it’s that Twin Peaks is a weird ass town. It uses a formula common in David Lynch films: features troubled/idiosyncratic protagonists in aberrant situations, has nearly every supporting character act like they were born on Mars, and throws in a noir-ish, dreamlike quality on top of it.

The film is, apparently, predominantly about the last days in the life of a surreptitiously drug-addicted and sexually active teenager named Laura Palmer, but no plot synopsis can truly give an accurate impression of the film.

There are no antagonists throughout, only an impending, looming sense of peril. The viewer is left with their own interpretation of where the danger comes from and most importantly, what it represents. With the protagonist’s supreme vulnerability, that sense of danger drifts into instability much of the time (especially when it reaches its climax).

It achieves its surreal quality with bizarrely colorful cinematography, idly paced camera movement, outlandish dialogue, a moody score, an abundance of still shots and of course, plenty of seemingly random images (though the ambiguous symbolism behind the images should get the viewer thinking).

There are plenty of surprises, and many abrupt shocks, but none are cheaply worked in. It’s the rare case where most of its shocks don’t contain much development, yet still leave an impression. And in the off-chance that they are built-up, they work exceptionally well.

Additionally, the film has a great cast, with names like David Bowie, Kyle MacLachlan, Jürgen Prochnow, Harry Dean Stanton, Kiefer Sutherland, Miguel Ferrer, Ray Wise, and David Lynch himself putting in appearances. Sheryl Lee plays the main role and gives a great performance that unfortunately didn’t amount to much.

It was released during the noir resurrection of the 80’s and early-to-mid 90’s, and it breaks the mold of what would be considered a typical neo-noir. Despite any confusion that the narrative may bring to the viewer, it’s hard to deny that Lynch masters his ambient surrealist craft here, and that his style is in full form with this underrated gem.

You have written some great reviews. I don't know why I've never come across this thread before. Oh well, I'm here now and I look forward to your next review.

Thanks especially for The Lodger, as I own the movie in an old not-remastered Hitchcock collection, but have never really felt the urge to watch it. After reading your review, I'm going to try to watch it some time next week.

House by the River (1950)
http://i35.tinypic.com/v3oc9j.jpg

To some, it might seem like a run of the mill gothic noir, but the fact that it revs up its tone in full creaky-door-hinge mode, and uses it effectively as it does, should’ve solidified it with a classic status among noir films. Unfortunately, the film has pretty much been swept under the rug since the time of its release.

It’s about a wealthy writer named Stephen Byrne that, while under a drunken dilemma, attacks and unintentionally murders a maid. Byrne convinces his brother to help him hide the body, and surprisingly, in a break from noir tradition, nothing goes wrong… at first.

The two brothers’ interactions with each other after the murder make for some of the best scenes in the film. Stephen’s brother becomes consumed by guilt, while Stephen, much to his brother’s dismay, exploits the murdered woman by writing about her. But, while Stephen doesn’t feel much guilt, his own occasionally delusional paranoia is what ends up burning him.

Though its plot may come across as predictable and perhaps even a bit tedious, the fantastic showcase of its oddly psychotic main character is done in an extremely unpredictable manner. The creepily antagonistic performance from Louis Hayward is also worth a mention.

Also, take into account the way that it builds its tension by putting unsuspecting characters in dangerous situations much of the time, and it seems almost as if it could have come from Hitchcock. If not that, then the influence of his earlier work is sure there.

House by the River is just another one of the many forgotten classics directed by Fritz Lang, a somewhat remembered, yet still under-acknowledged master.


+

Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler (1922)
http://i35.tinypic.com/2eg5ezr.jpg

Perhaps one of the earliest true detective-chasing-criminal films, certainly one of the most inspirational, and still one of the best is Dr Mabuse, the Gambler.

Mabuse, almost a 1920’s version Hannibal Lecter in personality, is shown as he commits seemingly foolproof crimes with a mastery of disguise and an uncanny hypnotic ability. After a state inspector catches onto Mabuse’s series of crimes without knowing who committed them, he delves into the case.

Meanwhile, Mabuse uses his powerful influence to sick his lackeys on the inspector, leading not only to an inevitable dueling of hero and villain, but to a clash between criminals and the police department. As the inspector digs deeper and grows closer to unveiling Mabuse as the perpetrator, the more he seems like a rat in a maze of impending fate.

The character of Mabuse must have inspired loads of one-dimensional villains since his film debut, but his way of calm manipulation through fear is almost always without equal. He was one of cinema’s first master villains, and without a doubt the most interesting part of the film.

The film is a cunning example of early social commentary fused with film-noir. It also shows how much Fritz Lang could do with the silent format, and how much his work thrived on its dark content. It should be essential viewing for any Lang fan as a sign of things to come, with touches of predetermining greatness throughout.

The Testament of Dr. Mabuse (1933)
http://i38.tinypic.com/1zx6ydc.jpg

Taking place years after Dr. Mabuse goes insane at the end of Dr Mabuse, the Gambler, he’s depicted as an almost brain-dead lunatic that dedicates every fiber of his being to scribbling on paper. But somehow, his presence is still felt in the seedy crime underworld.

Inspector Lohmann (the same inspector from Fritz Lang’s M), is simultaneously put onto what, at first, seems like a conspired cover-up. His leads keep winding up in the direction of Dr. Mabuse, who passes away immediately before Lohmann finds out about him. We then learn that, even after his passing, Mabuse’s crime spree continues being carried out in an unimaginable way.

It’s strange that the most fascinating aspect of the original film acted like a zombie throughout this. It follows the plot of Dr. Mabuse going insane, and while he still finds his ways of carrying out crimes within a mental institution, his characteristics are nonexistent. He’s reprised by Rudolf Klein-Rogge, in one of the easiest acting gigs he’s most likely ever gotten. One part of the film did add to the Mabuse character though. It was revealed, roughly, that Mabuse didn’t share the ideals of a common criminal, that he organized crime as a way to mock the lackeys who fell into his trap, and that he saw what he did as a part of his flawed human nature.

Another risky plot-point was the supernatural aspect, which shows Mabuse as a ghost as he continues to influence others carrying out his crimes. Lang himself admitted later that if he were to re-do the film, he wouldn’t have included the ghost portion. But, Mabuse’s ghostly presence does add a macabre tone that the film thrives on.

There is much reverence to be found in this for using its silent techniques so effectively as well. The opening scene is a particularly standout example of that. And the first scene featuring Dr. Mabuse’s return from the grave is a mini-masterpiece in itself.

Some critics may point out that film has its flaws. Perhaps the biggest flaws at the time of release were being too ahead of its period, and portraying its themes too roughly. It holds up magnificently now and shows hardly any signs of aging. This is a perfect fit for someone looking to break into classic cinema.


+

Hardware (1990)
http://i55.tinypic.com/1on77d.jpg

In the post-apocalyptic future of Hardware, drifters with glowing eyes roam the wastelands, Iggy Pop is a vexatious radio show host, and Lemmy Kilmister is a cab driver that likes playing his own music.

A simple synopsis of the simple plot: A woman winds up with an android with a combative duty to kill all humans. Thus, we have this nihilistic piece of cinematic grit that was plugged as The Terminator for the 90’s.

The film is horrendously rated among the general public. I can’t wrap my brain around how most people can hate something that I loved so much. Objectivity is pretty much nonexistent when it comes to this. I can struggle to call it a good or even a bad flick, but its own uniqueness overshadows its actual quality.

The criticism that this gets for its campy tone and implausibility is understandable (though it’s beyond me why anyone would watch a film like Hardware with a serious mindset), but it’s actually a pretty well-made flick with some marvelous low-budget set design to boot. It may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but if you’re a fan of the genre, and you don’t take its plot too seriously, it can turn out to be tremendously entertaining.

Though the more I think about it, the camp value could have been just an undercurrent to support the filmmaker’s vision. One scene at the end left me flabbergasted. There’s something daringly original and amazing about having a man with a mechanical forearm sitting in the middle of a room cutting his human arm open and seeing insects crawl out of it (a completely random move), while trippy lighting and fog rule the surroundings. Then have quick cuts of the killer android moving ominously with a strobe light set behind it, while classical music is playing over it all. Maybe that’s one reason why, to some, it may suffer from stylistic overload.

After seeing this and Dust Devil, it’s a shame that Richard Stanley’s potential was never fully recognized. Even if most carry low opinions of this film, I don’t think that anyone can rightfully deny that the direction put into the film’s vision is incredibly creative.


Camp rating: +

Shutter Island (2010)
http://i51.tinypic.com/2dt15vr.jpg

Shutter Island is a brilliant thriller dedicated almost exclusively to the psych. Those who want a run of the mill scare flick may be disappointed, but it will do wonders for those that appreciate incredibly well thought out and constructed plots.

It’s about a U.S. Marshall named Teddy Daniels sent over to investigate the disappearance of a patient at an insane asylum located on a secluded island. I’m choosing my words carefully here, because it is an easy film to spoil. Chances are, if you’ve seen any bit of the film’s advertising campaign, you know too much.

It’s becoming common for the ones that praise it to say that it’s a film that demands multiple viewings. In a sense, it is. It’s certainly not difficult for anyone to enjoy it upon a first viewing, but those who do only watch it once are missing a big portion of the mystery. Subtleties rule much of the film, and clues or leads to its conclusion make up a big part of its grandeur; clues that take more than one viewing to distinguish.

It’s also a terrific study in atmosphere, packing everything from gothic horror inspired cinematography to a classic classy mystery inspired tone. What it doesn’t do, is puts its style over substance, but rather blends both together majestically.

If you haven’t seen the film, you may want to skip over this paragraph. In a world where most critics and serious movie-goers despise twist endings that have been done before, perhaps sticking with the novel’s original ending was a gutsy move. At first glance, its ending may seem cliché, but few films have an approach to a twist similar to this one. The rare thing that sets it apart from the typical breed is that the “twist” ending is self-aware. It brings up seemingly inconsistent plot points, numerous questions, and perhaps even a sense of underwhelming conclusion to some. But, it doesn’t attempt to cheat its viewer out of everything that comes before it. Instead it embraces its ending and improves the rest of its plot around it.

Classic and modern cinema fans should be able to appreciate it alike. In its core lies wonderful homage to classic film-noir, Hitchcock and Lewton-esque horror. Anyone could have a good time watching this, but those who will love it are the ones who can let themselves get sucked into the puzzle that the film constructs, and explore the leftover pieces at the end.

Angst (1983)
http://i53.tinypic.com/sou15x.jpg
After a man is released from jail back onto the desolate streets that he grew up in, his mental instability urges him to commit atrocity. He conjures a misshapen plan to kill that, after numerous mistakes, forces him to improvise.

Angst is perhaps one of the most disturbing non-exploitation films ever made, and also one of the unsung masterpieces of the 80’s. Because of its content, it never received a theatrical release, but it’s still managed to garner somewhat of a cult reputation over the years.

The film is, for the most part, a character study of its killer, and with such an outlandish mind being delved into, its strangeness stands out. What also stands out is the gritty realism of it all. With flashes of bizarre camera work thrown into the mix, it brings the viewer close into the killer’s cold, isolated world.

From the point of view of the madman, everyone else seems like an outsider, and this film demonstrates the paranoid interaction that the madman has with his surroundings. In a place that he feels he doesn’t belong, his urge to commit violence strengthens.

Though the film is quite graphic, it doesn’t throw a large portion of its attention at violence, and it’s not an exploitation film. To be precise, there’s only one scene that is overtly graphic. But, its disturbing sequences strike like an axe. The film’s genuine tone may make viewers cringe, as well as gaze in awe.


+

Encounter at Raven's Gate (1988)
http://i53.tinypic.com/2zeb43l.jpg

Encounter at Raven’s Gate (or Incident at Raven’s Gate) is a virtually unknown Australian film that oozes the style of the late 80’s. It was released to a predominantly poor critical response. That coupled with a cast of unknowns make it pretty much unobtainable today unless you have a VCR or Netflix instant watch.

The plot may come across as jumbled to some, especially in the closing minutes. In both plot and (especially) style, I find it very comparable to Alex Cox’s Repo Man, which also has an intentionally weird cliffhanger of an ending.

It’s about a strange, irresistible force that inexplicably rears its ugly head near a place in the Australian outback called Raven’s Gate. It leaves a house deserted, melting its occupants, and casts a foreboding presence on any moving thing that comes close to Raven’s Gate.

Despite what Wikipedia’s description indicates, Encounter is not an arthouse film. It does, however, have a very artistic, albeit somewhat campy, style. The biggest highlight may be the lighting. Though it does get a tad too flamboyant and hectic at times, it compliments the film’s outback setting.

Rolf de Heer, the director, has gone on to build somewhat of a reputation, especially after bringing home a Special Jury Prize at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival. Encounter was made in the early stages of his career, and isn’t one of his most noteworthy flicks, but it does feature some promising sequences.

Overall, the film is far from great, but it’s a fun way to spend 1.5/24ths of your day, especially if you, like me, have an affinity for stylistic 80’s science fiction or for the science fiction-horror genre in particular.

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

just found this thread doing a search for "murders in rue morgue" (which it turns out you mentioned in a review of Mad Love). really enjoying these reviews, especially the classic horror. :up:

Thanks. Here's some more classic horror:

The Picture of Dorian Gray(1945)
http://i52.tinypic.com/2cp84zt.jpg

The key to the fright in The Picture of Dorian Gray is the anticipation. The film is preeminently a drama, and there aren’t any truly harrowing scenes until the second half of the film, but every time that there is an implication of evil, a subtle, somewhat creepy tone plays, and there isn’t any denying that the film brings the viewer to anticipate the main character’s downfall.

It begins with the painting of Dorian Gray being completed, and Dorian making some painstakingly obvious remarks that are supposed to foreshadow the plot of the film, much akin to the beginning of The Most Dangerous Game film adaption. If you try to take Dorian’s early written words seriously, they may seem a little annoying. I point out The Most Dangerous Game as a similarity because it used a very similar technique to build its plot in the opening minutes of the film. For example, in The Most Dangerous Game, when Joel McCrea’s character (Bob) is talking with his buddies about big-game hunting on his boat, one skeptic steps in and asks what he thinks the animals must feel while they’re being hunted. Once McCrea responds in a careless manner, the boat immediately crashes… and the rest is history.

There are a few important words spoken by Dorian in the beginning though. For the necessity of a sensible plot, he states that he’d sell his soul to look young forever, and of course, his wish is granted as the film vaguely focuses on a mysterious foreign artifact that, according to his friend Lord Henry has historical significance. The fact that the artifact isn’t concentrated on much in the film makes its presence more ominous, and in the film’s most enigmatic sense, the artifact’s history is never revealed.

Despite Dorian Gray being in the title, Lord Henry is the most intriguing character. He’s played excellently by George Sanders in a role that Basil Rathbone allegedly wasn’t able to get. Henry’s care-free, selfish, pleasure-seeking philosophy angers most of those around him, but Dorian Gray takes his principles to heart, but is to naïve to gather a full understanding of what they mean. To Dorian, they mean to seek pleasure at any cost, even at the demise of others.

That’s where the social question really rears its head. Lord Henry is a brilliant character, but his views on life are too brash for Dorian to interpret. As Dorian goes out and becomes more and more careless, his reputation is brought down drastically, and his sins are stored in his mind making him guilt-driven. The twist is that Dorian has an immortal-like quality about him that fuels his carelessness, and since his face and body are ageless, his portrait becomes increasingly grotesque with not only age, but his corrupt past.

For a 1940’s Hollywood horror production, Dorian Gray is surprisingly subtle, with bits that could easily shock a viewer not expecting something that’s, occasionally, more visually disturbing than 95% of the films of its era. I’d advise everyone that hasn’t seen the film to disregard this paragraph, since the less you expect about the film, the more of an impact it’s prone to leave.


+

De dødes tjern (1958)
http://i42.tinypic.com/316n4uw.jpg

I know it seems like I’m beating a dead horse with the amount of obscure horror oldies that take up this thread, but… I just can’t help myself. Here’s another…

De dødes tjern or Lake of the Dead/Damned doesn’t waste too much time in presenting the plot basics. It opens up with an establishment of six friends traveling to a secluded cabin in the woods (!). In a way that feels like it’s been done quite a few times since, they discover that the supposed inhabitant of the cabin (the brother of one of the characters) has disappeared. As they unravel more about the cabin’s past, the circumstances of disappearance continually grow more questionable.

It contains a cast simple enough to pin down in the opening minutes: the detective that only looks at the facts, the somewhat cowardly but likeable writer, the somewhat brave writer’s wife, the cynical writing critic, the psychic woman who has a bad feeling about predictably key plot points, and the insightful psychologist.

The opening of the story isn’t too subtle, but the way it plays out has plenty of balance between all-out shocks and understated atmosphere. It lets its implications build, and presents satisfactory conclusions to them in an ever-present classic mystery fashion, a mystery aspect that makes it feel like a horror screenplay in the custom of Agatha Christie (complete with a small ensemble of ‘not everyone is who they seem to be’ characters).

In the end, all of these elements, simple as they may be, complement each other wonderfully. It doesn’t seem like an especially ambitious project, and it isn’t a masterpiece, but it’s entertaining enough to be, despite its obscurity, often considered one of the best Norwegian films ever made. I know my praise for it isn’t too high, but I still recommend it more than most of the films in this thread, because it’s a stylistically accessible scare film that I can’t imagine disappointing many.



Watch on YouTube

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

Feel free to keep hitting the horror oldies, re93, I enjoy reading about them. :up:

So if anyone’s interested… I guess I’m gonna resurrect this thread in the stead of starting anew. I’ve got a fever, and the only prescription, is tediously writing some film reviews. However, please keep in mind that, naturally, looking back on much of the older content makes me wince (as I’m sure looking back on this stuff will too one day). Also, my keenness for many of the films previously rated here has fluctuated quite a bit since.

This, in particular, fills me full of woe: http://i.imgur.com/uwBFmib.gif
I must clarify that now, six years hence, I’ve gone through the series 3 times in full, and I’d be pressed to think of many things in life that I’m currently a bigger fan of. So there.

I’ll post something hopefully tomorrow.

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

I've already said it, but it's nice to see you back. :)

Thanks again. I appreciate it.:D

The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939)
http://i.imgur.com/6AthShG.jpg?1

Full disclosure: it’s nearly impossible for me to suspend my biases for this movie. When I was a wee lad, this was the first black and white film that I truly fell for. It motivated me to relentlessly pursue more B&W classics thereafter, and compelled me to particularly devour the ones with eerie, fog-ridden atmospheres. Basil Rathbone quickly became my favorite classic movie actor (along with Karloff and Lugosi), and it’s still impossible for me to forgo my biases when watching other actors portray Holmes (even the fantastic Jeremy Brett). Rathbone is MY definitive Holmes.

For those unaware of the ACD story: an heir to a wealthy estate is thought to be in danger, and Holmes is hired to investigate a mystery that seems to point to a curse involving a fiendish hound. The film is played out (as all Sherlock Holmes stories are) primarily as a crime mystery. Though, the foggy moors and quasi-supernatural nature of the plot make it welcome to any classic horror assemblage. There are plenty of atmospheric furnishings to go around.

Basil Rathbone fits the role like a glove. He may have additionally been known for playing swashbuckling villains, but it’s hard not to imagine him as Holmes, one of cinema’s great protagonists. Perceptively, he tried to distance himself from the role later on, fearing that it was overshadowing his career. Even though this series also furthered the stereotype of Dr. Watson being a blundering buffoon, Nigel Bruce’s Watson does provide some appropriate comic relief. The rest of the acting may seem tacky to any modern viewer, but it furthers the plot without becoming a distraction.

It’s only an hour and fifteen minutes long, but it allows the setting to saturate the narrative. One of the best things that eerie and atmospheric films can do is let their environments breathe a little; to let the uneasiness settle in rather than hastening to the impending shock. Given, the opening scene and explanatory ending may seem rushed, but the dark and dreary scenes are generally afforded the appropriate treatment. The music is also suitably absent during much of the film (present mostly in the beginning), and the thrill scenes don’t come across as gaudily dated.

If I have to (despite my partiality) pick a gripe, it’d be the token romance. Having two under-developed characters hook up and get engaged within hours of meeting each other is a markedly outdated cliché, and appears tacked on. The movie does fall into some typical devices of its time, and much of it may come across as passé now. But, as hopelessly biased as this sounds: the co-stars’ hammy acting, the colorful score (sparse at it is), and the archetypal characters only add to the charm. It’s not going to be exceptionally poignant and it’s probably not going to be frightening to anyone past childhood, but it should provide plenty of entertainment for those interested in classic thrillers.

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

I like these old Holmes movies, too.

Haxan: Witchcraft Through the Ages (1922)
http://i.imgur.com/vBL5cTI.jpg?1

Being one of the earliest examples of a feature length documentary, Haxan now seems like one of the greatest experiments of the 20s, and it’s still worth experiencing for some reasons that likely weren’t intended during its creation. Because of this, it’s a very difficult film to objectively evaluate. It may not be as technically groundbreaking as the most popularly upheld silent films, but the strange and unique qualities still make it one of the most entertaining and alluring ones.

Haxan may have originally been envisioned as an educational film on the subject of witchcraft, but almost 100 years later, its drawing power comes mainly from a macabre charm. Given that much of the film’s content is presented through lurid enactments, it could also be considered one of the earliest full length horror features. These enactments include depictions of demonic worship, salacious rituals, and brutal methods of torture. In the opening 10 minutes, excerpts of timeworn occult books are also highlighted (think The Ninth Gate), establishing much of the lore that the rest of the film is based on.

There’s something especially creepy about silent era effects. Maybe the diluted picture quality of the film obscures the faults typically found in make-up and set design. The demonic depictions and morbidly decorated backdrops look like old photographs come to life. The set design even stands out in a period pervaded by expressionistic German films (some of the most intriguing visually-driven films ever made).

Its risqué nature led to it being prohibited in other countries at the time. Despite this, it was the most expensive and ambitious Scandinavian film of its time. To add to its obscene and subversive nature, there was even a 1968 abridged version narrated by William Burroughs and inappropriately given a jazz score. Though, I’d advise first time viewers to stay away from that one.

The moral message presented at the end seems obvious by today’s standards (condemning the use of extreme torture to coerce confessions of witchery), but it does raise some thought-provoking parallels to modern society. Regardless of what intent the film was made for in 1922, it can now be appreciated in a different way. Most silent films that are still popular today may be viewed for their historical significance or influential nature, but the obscure nature of Haxan probably rules out the possibility of it being highly influential. It is instead a mesmerizing product of its time; an atmospheric relic that thankfully remains in the public eye almost a century later.

Lust for Life (1956)
http://i.imgur.com/hnscg1U.jpg?1

Lust for Life details the notoriously tormented life of Vincent Van Gogh, arguably the most revered painter of all time. In the beginning, Van Gogh unfortunately comes across a little too much like a typical Hollywood leading man with some random psychotic episodes thrown in (Vincent Van Spartacus). There are glimpses of madness in the first half, but they seem to stem mainly from stress inflicted by other minor antagonistic characters (such as the morally corrupt clergy, the haughty art critics, and the overly-demanding father). The screenplay seemed afraid to portray a more fragile personality. To be fair, sympathetic portrayals of volatile insanity aren’t common (especially in 50s films), and it couldn’t have been easy to write a role for a character that’s supposed to express characteristics associated with mad villains of the time.

However, Kirk Douglas plunges himself into the insanity that manifests itself in the second half. Everything following Van Gogh’s hopelessly dependent relationship with Paul Gauguin does reflect the actions of a truly tortured soul, and Kirk Douglas plays the character with head-clutching intensity. Later, the story also briefly tries to underscore Van Gogh’s loneliness, as he greets Gauguin with a youthful enthusiasm. In one scene, Van Gogh even sadly refers to Gauguin as ‘Theo’ during a quarrel. Nevertheless, if Van Gogh’s interpersonal ineptitude was more pronounced, his loneliness would’ve really struck home. Overall, the movie does capture Van Gogh’s alleged instability well in the second half, but it feels more like a sudden descent into madness, rather than a persistent problem that steadily worsened over the course of his life due to epilepsy and alcohol abuse. Good as it is, I can’t help but feel the story would’ve been exponentially more interesting if we were given a less restrained version of events. On a side note: Van Gogh may have looked somewhat feeble in his self-portraits, but Douglas’ appearance is still uncannily appropriate.

Apart from Theo Van Gogh and Paul Gauguin, the more minor characters are given less than complex gimmicks. The pompous art critics, in particular, are almost comically archetypal. Nonetheless, beyond some gripes with the characters, the film is a gorgeous technical achievement. It exhibits some tremendously beautiful landscapes and detailed sets. For a film about a painter known for expressive use of color, the visual component is handled appropriately; it does justice to Van Gogh’s supposed idiosyncratic perception of the world.

The score is colorful and melodramatic; typical of grand Hollywood pictures of the time. However, it tends to get a little too bombastic for a character study, and seems more akin to a military or Biblical epic (unsurprisingly, Miklós Rózsa was also responsible for scoring Ben-Hur). Whenever Van Gogh has an ‘episode,’ the score rather cheaply sinks into thriller territory as well. A more understated score would’ve been welcome, but there are still fitting moments where the music compliments the beautiful scenery and paintings.

As a biopic about a troubled painter, Lust for Life may seem like a rather humble endeavor, but it’s given the rich and vibrant old-school Hollywood treatment, complete with the aforementioned saturated visuals, lively score, and prolific actors (Anthony Quinn even won an OSCAR for his role). Despite a less than stellar start, the movie is far from boring. It is, at its best, a lush and gorgeous portrait of a complex subject.

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

Everybody who goes on about Minnelli and Some Came Running should see this - a film I've always thought was a stronger, more-colorful melodrama.

I'll have to give Some Came Running a go.

Lust For Life is, like Mark said, powerful story telling. It's a must for any Van Gogh fans.

Do see Some Came Running, excellent film, but totally different in subject matter than Lust For Life. I reviewed it some months ago, loved it.

L’Atalante (1934)
http://i.imgur.com/lNbwjX0.jpg?1

L’Atalante follows a newly married couple as they venture out to sea aboard a rather meek vessel adorned with the movie’s title. Immediately following marriage, a crowded boat isn’t exactly a desirable setting for Juliette (the female lead), especially when its occupied by a seemingly endless slew of cats and a weary oddball named Père Jules. So when the opportunity presents itself, Juliette is naturally lured to the dazzling lights, animated characters, and majestic reputation of Paris. Longing for adventure and feeling tempted after a brief glimpse into the stimulating spirit of the city, the girl is naively drawn away from the boat. The film then shows that the city can be far less fruitful and attractive when experienced alone.

Paris isn’t presented in metropolitan grandeur, but modestly as a place of free-spiritedness and excitement. The highs and lows of the city are captured in the city’s nightlife, music, and personalities (ranging from the delightfully eccentric to the unscrupulous). Contrastingly, the crowded cabins aboard L’Atalante are supplied with detail that accentuates claustrophobia, making it easy to see why anyone confined aboard the vessel would long for an enticing life beyond. The offbeat and Romantic nature of the story and the unique cast of characters with their identifying quirks seems to have noticeably rubbed off on the likes of Jean Pierre Jeunet (parallels could be drawn between Jules and One in The City of Lost Children, for instance).

Though the story is primarily about a struggling marriage, there is an unusually quirky atmosphere that may catch the fancy of those who aren’t necessarily drawn to classic romance movies. In particular, the eccentricity of Père Jules and his cabin (stocked with a trove of strange trinkets) adds a bizarre element. Père Jules is arguably the most intriguing part of the film. Despite being a third-wheel, he stands out in every scene he’s in. His character may be dopey enough to provide comic relief, but he also has a sympathetic charm. One can’t help but feel for the louse who gets manipulated, laughed at, and abused for the duration of the movie. When his cabin is explored, his apparent world-traveled past adds another dynamic to consider. He may be a grunt, but his cabin reveals exotic relics from the world over that he shows off with a humble candor; and his scarred and tattooed body suggests a troubled past that has potentially wreaked havoc on his mental state.

Père Jules character may be intentionally exaggerated, but the rest of the film is pleasantly understated and unpretentious. Despite the odd detail put into the vessel, there’s a modest lack of attention put on glamourizing the city (even a modicum of activity is enough to attract Juliette). The plot, which focuses on emotion instead of contrivances, may be a little too minimal for some, but it should appeal to those that find satisfaction in poetic simplicity.

The Revenant (2015)
http://i.imgur.com/2NJWFMg.jpg?1

Modern audiences seem to crave more stark realism in pop films. It seems the days of English speaking Nazis in WWII films are over, and audiences have grown more keen and critical of overbearing forced contrivances. The Revenant may carry its share of emotionally manipulative traits, but in the spirit of 2015, it seems to have found a more tolerable balance between realism and melodrama (that strongly favors realism).

The story effectually derives from the legend of Hugh Glass, which concerns a man that was ravaged by a bear and abandoned by his colleagues. It’s a simplistic plot revolving around survival and revenge, but the simplicity works. It’s only in the second half, when the plot started to grow slightly more complicated, that my interest began to falter a bit. The dream sequences of Glass’ family do flirt with tedium as well. DiCaprio winning an OSCAR seems to have overshadowed the rest of the movie. He predominantly grunts and moans as he meanders through the wilderness, but he definitely looks the part while doing it. I suppose one can expect more physical acting in a story based on survival in the face of harsh nature.

With blunt violence, naturalistic acting, unhurried pacing, and a mostly unaltered environment, the atmosphere in The Revenant encourages immersion, and goes out of its way to envelop the viewer in the period. It may come across a little like OSCAR bait, but the realism doesn’t exactly hinder the film either. Before watching, one should also know that there are few relieving affectations; the film is mostly bleak and gritty, emphasizing humans savage treatment of one another.

Of course, the easiest thing to admire about the film is the beautifully shot setting. We are given an abundance of vast picturesque views of the wilderness, elevated by beautiful cinematography that gives the scenery a sort of animated feel (especially the water). The stylization almost looks more attractive than real life. The slow pace of the film also accommodates the setting by letting the viewer study each area carefully and soak in the environment.

http://i.imgur.com/fMJn3WI.jpg?1

The score is appropriately dramatic for the most part, doesn’t get too sappy, and thankfully refrains from getting too bombastic during the tense moments. It’s not subtle, but also not overbearing. It does do that movie trailer thing where mounting tension is heightened by replaying a sampled noise over and over again. That may be somewhat unoriginal now, but it’s cool when done appropriately. The score is far from typical though; the more unusual or piercing moments even remind me somewhat of experimental composers like Xenakis or Ligeti.

Pervaded by symbolism and the aforementioned artsy flourishes, The Revenant seems to draw more from art house films than other Hollywood thrillers. That coupled with the somber and violent plot likely won’t appeal to many that are simply cycling through flicks from last year’s award season. Its technical merits do make it well worth a look though.

The Secret Adventures of Tom Thumb (1993)
http://i.imgur.com/TOhDqj0.jpg?1

One would be pressed to find many stranger films than Tom Thumb outside of its own inspirations. It seems heavily influenced by the works of Jan Svankmajer (for the quirky pervasive stop motion) and the brothers Quay (for the sense of dilapidated splendor and detailed model backgrounds). As with many of Svankmajer’s films, Tom Thumb is mostly absent of dialogue and the sound is permeated by samples. The samples accentuate odd noisy creaks and minute sound effects, which add to the offbeat charm.

The story begins with the birth of a tiny Eraserhead-looking baby. It certainly sets a tone, and the first five minutes are weird enough to ward off intruders, or weed out those who aren’t gonna be able to stomach the rest. The baby is then kidnapped by a mysterious organization (that is left ambiguous), setting forth an adventure that brings us to a laboratory occupied by surrealistic abominations and later a hidden village of micro people.

Much of the film is set in a surreal town with colorful and shadowy streets containing odd creatures. The town is also filled to the brim with insects in nearly every shot, likely to accentuate the grimy environment and filthy people within. Moreover, within the town’s establishments, every detail seems to either be crumbling or unbalanced. Though the concentrated areas of the town are architecturally proportional, the town is very expressionistic from afar, with a claustrophobic sky. The smaller areas that serve as the setting for the models are also given a nice amount of detail. Humans are presented as sweaty, buffoonish ‘giants,’ that mainly serve to cause trouble for the more innocently presented micro people.
http://i.imgur.com/dG8Nz5n.png?1

Unusually, even the live actors are filmed in stop motion. This would be easily digestible in an experimental short film, but it can be unappealing for nearly an hour, as the actors’ movement appears slow and jagged. The stop motion does have occasional charm though (namely in a quick ‘fight’ scene). The stop motion with the models (that takes up much of the movie) is really smooth for the most part, which makes me think the live actors’ movement was intentionally stutter-y to juxtapose the (mostly thoughtless) humans to the craftier models.

Maybe I’ve become desensitized to these kinds of films, because everything else I read about this seems to describe it as twisted, creepy, disturbing, etc. Apart from the bits in the laboratory of horrors, I saw it more as dark and offbeat. I must also point out the fitting lo-fi Residents-esque soundtrack that surprisingly has odd moments of beauty. For anyone, like myself, who is interested in stop motion surrealism, Tom Thumb is a must watch. It should also oblige anyone looking for a really weird and stylish gem.

Kin-dza-dza (1986)
http://i.imgur.com/UQoa8yi.jpg?1

Kin-dza-dza opens with Vladimir, a man leading a drudgingly normal life. He is the Russian everyman; content with an average factory job, an average home, and an average wife. After stumbling upon a strange homeless man claiming to be from another planet, Vladimir (along with a new found comrade) is abruptly transported to a strange, backwards, and scarcely populated alien planet known to the inhabitants as Pluke. The protagonists are then unusually greeted (KOO!) by Russia’s answer to Danny DeVito and John Cleese. The main characters, searching for a way back to Earth, must bitterly conform to Pluke’s social standards and find ways of obtaining necessary resources. They do this by performing enjoyably terrible song and dance routines.

Pluke is a vast desert with occasional glimpses of life. The planet is filled with bizarre post-apocalyptic looking sets and wonderfully imaginative contraptions the would make Terry Gilliam blush. Being set in a mostly barren desert, the world isn’t really fleshed out until the film’s latter half when the protagonists are taken underground. Unfortunately, by that time much of the planet’s mystique is diminished. Though Russian is spoken on Pluke, there’s also a comprehensive list of terms that viewers must familiarize themselves with. Koo, most prevalently, is a ubiquitous term that’s relayed in Kin-dza-dza about as many times as f*ck is relayed in Snatch.
http://i.imgur.com/Y7GIU6w.png?1

This film definitely comes with a substantial emphasis on social commentary, no doubt culturally promoted by the Soviet Union at the time. The screwy sci-fi world of Pluke is an overt worst-case scenario of classism, and could be seen as a reproach of capitalist society. Pluke’s population is senselessly divided into three main classes: the patsaks (the menial laborers, traders, or slaves), the chatlanians (middle), and the etsilops (council members to which every other citizen must bow). The lower classes must wear bells around their noses, foolishly greet superiors, and stand in cages when confronted by a higher rank. The social hierarchy of Pluke seems to be self-imposed by the inhabitants, with no one but the main characters posing any questions. The people also have grown exceptionally deceptive and greedy, driven by a world ruthlessly bent on unscrupulous bartering and tensions between classes. The protagonists, while begrudgingly putting up with the outlandish ways of the society, logically argue that no man is better than another on any superficial basis. However, as a philosophical rebuke of capitalism, this can all come across as somewhat trite.

Politics notwithstanding, watching two civilized men traverse a crazy unknown world is simply a fun premise. The humor is delightfully subtle at times, and the charmingly eccentric supporting characters are wonderful. The film loses a bit of steam towards the end (as it focuses less on the captivating exposition of Pluke), but it’s still good enough to be considered a cult classic in its homeland. Being a Soviet film, it doesn’t get the attention it deserves in the West though. Agree or disagree, I have to give it props for presenting a thought-provoking cultural outlook, and being really funny all the while.

Until the End of the World (1991)
http://i.imgur.com/3hpfLCA.jpg?1

Until the End of the World is an adventure film in the grandest sense. It takes the viewer through an industrialized quasi-cyberpunk Europe to the scarcely populated outback, and through an unusually diverse set of places in between. All of the environments are given fitting treatment; the vibrant scenery is allowed to settle and unique cultural differences are highlighted. It might seem clustered, projecting so many different moods from different settings, but it also instills an unparalleled sense of scope and unpredictability.

The cast of characters is every bit as diverse as the environments. Claire Tourneur is the unconventional female lead who longs for purpose in life, and is desperately committed to realizing it. Sam Farber is a mysterious noir throwback, who is pursued by a fairly inept Australian hitman. Eugene Fitzpatrick is a writer, and serves as the film’s narrator and voice of reason. Then, briefly seen are the mad paranoiac, the French bank robbers, the sequestered Japanese plant doctor, and a myriad of others. The interactions between characters often seems unnatural and hammy. I suppose this could be relegated to poor or disengaged writing, but for someone as hopelessly enamored with this movie as me: the dialogue furthers a dreamlike quality (which later ties into the crux of the story). The communication between the two leads almost seems like hallucinatory discourse. The same is true for the minor characters at some points (such as the crazed paranoiac that Claire Tourneur meets in a bar, and casually tells that she will never forget). The film’s radically different locations are met with an unreal nonchalance by the world traveled characters as well.

The film is indeed a product of its time. Pop songs permeate much of the film, so having a taste for them helps. The score itself (composed by Graeme Revell) is a mish-mash of music styles to accompany the various settings and moods, and anyone familiar with SPK knows that Revell is no stranger to experimental music. Additionally, as with all depictions of the future, the technological ‘advancements’ have dated rather quickly, but are still cool and amusing as far as cheesy gadgets go.

This may not be as philosophically or emotionally driven as Wim Wenders’ other prominent art films. Wings of Desire may be a beautiful film about passion and mortality, but the philosophical diatribes tend to come across as pretentious. Paris, Texas is another personal favorite, but the nature of the story doesn’t make for an easy watch. Until the End of the World may be considered an art film, but it shouldn’t scare away those who don’t want to get swept up in another artsy filmmaker’s monotonous attempt to vicariously give us their life’s philosophy. It is a strange, fascinating and multifaceted film, but it’s also entertaining.

Until the End of the World is not a complete mindbender pervaded by ambiguity and surrealism; the movie is just strange. This is mainly a product of the narrative and visuals, but also has a lot to with Wenders’ relaxed direction (even in the ‘thriller’ parts). It doesn't come without a share of shortcomings, but for those that find allure in all of this, there are few films (if any) with an equally odd sense of grandeur and ambition.
http://i.imgur.com/ZCPDYko.png?1

On a side note, the Director’s Cut may not be the most obtainable version of the film, but it’s preferable to the condensed version. It’s a long haul at about 4 ½ hours (in 3 installments), but with so much more room to expound upon the story, it’s far clearer and more understandable than the 2 ½ hour abridgment.

Split Second (1992)
http://i.imgur.com/CLfYJbd.jpg?1

Cool. Split Second takes place in a dystopic London in the near future (2008, for perspective). London has been direly affected by global warming (shown through flooded streets and water-worn environments). The plot simply follows an officer named Stone (played by Rutger Hauer) as he trails a killer monstrosity that likes to munch on people’s hearts. Stone is a cigar smoking, trench coat wearing, shotgun toting cop who, despite being in pursuit of a highly dangerous killer, insists on wearing sunglasses at night and indoors. Stone is almost too bad ass for the movie’s own good. Seriously, some puny ass monster stands about a snowball’s chance in hell against this guy.

Stone is said to be an unstable ex-alcoholic rule breaker who has been relieved of duty time and time again. But, “they say he’s the best,” so I guess it’s OK then. Stone is eventually assigned a new poindexter of a partner that he affectionately calls “Dick.” As they pursue the killer, we begin to see that this cunning, all-purpose monster is somehow smart enough to taunt the police department, is capable of handling firearms, and follows elaborate occult rituals. It also really loves heavy breathing when creeping up on someone.

Hauer fittingly hams it up, seemingly well aware of what kind of film he’s in. His character is given the best one liners you could hope for, and brandishes a magnificent hand cannon throughout most of the film. There’s also a surprising appearance by Pete Postlethwaite who, bless his heart, actually seemed to put some effort into his performance.

London is almost always shown at night, with a drab, predominantly faded blue hue. Within the watery setting, the lights love to flash too. If you want a cheap strobe light for Halloween this year, just drape a thin sheet over your TV with this playing underneath. There’s also a gritty synth score that at times seems reminiscent of Blade Runner (minus the atmospheric beauty of Vangelis’ score). Split Second also follows the classic horror tradition of not fully exposing the monster until the very end. I guess you can fault the marketing campaign for showing it on the poster.

At an hour and a half runtime, the movie is appropriately succinct, and never gets too boring. With big guns, cheesy one liners, hammy acting, graphic violent effects, and plenty of exaggerated action, it’s also a bastion of unadulterated testosterone. In 1992, this could be a 17-year-old boy’s Holy Grail. Now, it’s enjoyably dated, and should be fun for those that appreciate campy products of the time.
http://i.imgur.com/Quu6hOg.png?1

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

I watched this again a year or so ago and still loved it. It's perfect commentary fodder, too.

Necronomicon (1993)
http://i.imgur.com/Bd9Nquy.jpg?1

The overarching plot revolves around H.P. Lovecraft (looking like Bruce Campbell’s doppelganger) searching for the infamously cursed and secretly guarded titular text. Once he uncovers and begins to explore its passages, an anthology of horror tales is vividly enacted. The first story (a story within a story within a story) is a bizarre haunted house tale, with some nice tentacle-y stuff thrown in. The second (another story within a story within a story) is a Cool Air adaption with an unexpected appearance by David Warner. This may be the weakest part; it lacks the style of the other bits, and even with low, b-movie appropriated standards, the dialogue comes across as terribly hammy. The third story is actually genuinely unsettling. It follows a cop on the trail of an elusive murderous underground monstrosity. There are some awesome underground tombs, a wonderfully eccentric and mysterious old couple, and some of the most balls-out schlocky effects you’re likely to ever see.

The score is composed by Daniel Licht. It fits the period bits well, and is surprisingly rich for a b-movie. The orchestral bombast really enhances the camp factor. There are even unmistakable traces of Licht’s later work on Dexter. There’s also some decent shadowy cinematography with occasional boldly colored lighting, and plenty of great gooey, slimy, stretchy looking effects. Oh yeah, and monsters! Bizarre seaweed monster! Resurrected human tentacle monster! Flying alien vagina monster! And a satisfyingly cheesy giant Cthulhu-esque monster!

Two of the four segments are directed by Re-Animator producer Brian Yuzna. As hard as it is to contain my biases towards Re-Animator, Yuzna has a less than stellar track record directing. Along with Society, his Fulci-esque work here is probably his best. The other two segments are helmed by Christophe Gans (Silent Hill) and Shûsuke Kaneko (Death Note).

I know fans may long for a more serious and ambitious adaption of Lovecraft’s tales. None of the stories here are too faithful, but strive to be told in the spirit of Lovecraft. Necronomicon has the charm that hopefully inspires others to hunt down similarly schlocky grotesque flicks. It’s stylish, weird, campy, and twisted fun, which is about all you can reasonably ask for here. I must also point out that this rating isn’t a measure of technical quality as much as pure entertainment value. Of course it’s going to look like a steaming pile alongside Gone with the Wind, but it should do more than satisfy those that like this kind of thing.

Dagon (2001)
http://i.imgur.com/l3kaPz2.jpg?1

Though Lovecraft’s influence on the horror genre is prevalent, there are few direct adaptions of his works. Dagon, helmed by Stuart Gordon, is taken from HPL’s The Shadow Over Innsmouth and Dagon, and it’d be difficult to find another adaption with a more faithfully ominous atmosphere.

The story follows small vacationing group that ends up shipwrecked after a turbulent storm. Paul Marsh, the central protagonist of the group, is mysteriously drawn to a small local fishing village called Imboca. Unfortunately for Paul, Imboca happens to be inhabited by fish people (FISH PEOPLE!) that emphatically preach the power of Dagon. Before we’re given any significant thrills, the atmosphere (enforced by the murky village and intimidating townsfolk) is built up extremely well. Maybe a little too well, as the film’s plot exposition hardly lives up to the mounting atmosphere.

The town of Imboca is pervaded by boarded up windows, unkempt buildings overrun with vines, and omnipresent rainfall. The often dark cinematography is also illuminated by flashes of lightning. The fish populace (not the smartest antagonists) effectually act like zombies with funny vocal chords, but they can be creepy. There’s also some decent occult-ish set design, and a constant two-tone color scheme of cool blue (mostly outdoors) and yellow (mostly indoors).
http://i.imgur.com/XbymDj7.jpg?1

Paul Marsh is played by Ezra Godden in a somewhat hammy performance. His character starts off as a whiny, business driven poindexter that annoys the locals by attempting Spanish by adding ‘o’ to the end of every English word. By the end of the film, his character develops into a slightly less whiny poindexter that annoys the locals by setting a few on fire. The rest of the cast is pretty decent. In particular, the town priest is great (channeling Bela Lugosi), and the town drunkard (played by Francisco Rabal in one of his last roles) is f*cking perfect with his timeworn, scarred face, broken dialogue, and vocal chords that sound like they were put through a blender and drenched with alcohol.

I suppose the budget (or lack thereof) shows in the special effects. The monster make-up is fine and dandy, but the PS2-esque CGI was probably dated back in 2001, and some of the ‘gold’ props look a little too plastic-y. The music is absent during most of the thrill scenes (this heightens the immersion and suspense so much), and the more mystical parts of the story are accompanied by beautifully ominous choir and harp music. There are some overused clichés (such as tripping during a chase scene or dropping an item when it’s needed), but they don’t cast a long shadow.

Beyond the despondent setting and macabre story, Dagon is sort of a comedy in disguise. There are no musical cues, and the humor isn’t as overt as something like Re-Animator, but it’s hard to deny the humor in Paul Marsh pulling a fish man’s coat around his shoulders, kicking him in the groin, and repeatedly smacking him in the head with a cell phone when he’s down. Many of these wonderful moments are accentuated by amusing clobbering samples as well. Despite this, there’s actually some really well paced suspense and one particularly disturbing moment involving a priest and some divine knives. Dagon is a rare film that’s equal parts cheesy b-movie and genuinely atmospheric horror, and can give you the virtues of both.

Dun dun dun…

Re-Animator (1985)
http://i.imgur.com/RodkyQ4.jpg?1

No time is wasted as the opening sequence establishes a splatteriffic precedent, wherein we’re introduced to the now notorious Herbert West. This leads to a superb opening credit sequence driven by Charles Band’s (best name for a solo musician) controversial rendition (or homage, to put it… erm… nicely) of Bernard Hermann’s Psycho theme. We’re then introduced to Dan Cain, the movie’s moral protagonist. It’s not long before Cain apprehensively gets involved in West’s dire experiments aimed at reanimating dead body tissue with glow stick formula.

Surprising for an over the top 80s horror comedy, the humor can actually be quite subtle. Notice the Talking Heads poster on Cain’s wall. Har har. Moreover, the dialogue is full of immensely quotable one-liners delivered with self-aware panache. The music seems to be in on the joke as well; nothing is beat to death by accompanying comedic musical cues. Of course, being a shameless rip-off of the Psycho score, it’s a joke in itself. Beyond the main title, the score is a fitting amalgam of orchestral thriller music and cheesy 80s synths and drums.

Jeffrey Combs (in the role that sparked a significant horror film career and following) couldn’t be more perfect as the austere mad scientist. Even as an unscrupulous scientist with little regard for anything beyond his work, he’s the clear shining point of the movie and one of the most unusually lovable characters in horror cinema. The rest of the cast fulfill their duties well enough. David Gale gives a notable performance as Carl Hill, a clearly classic horror inspired villain. Considering his performance here, it’s regrettable that he didn’t become a mainstay in the horror genre (given an untimely passing). Robert Sampson also gives an underrated and versatile performance as Dean Halsey, a role that has him going from stern authority figure to brain dead lunatic. The special effects are another important facet of the movie. From the hilariously stiff stuffed cat to the gore soaked finale, the effects are still awesome for a film of its age and budget.

Re-Animator’s most appealing quality may be its originality. One would be pressed to find any zombie (using the word liberally) film with a similar premise or style. It is an H.P. Lovecraft adaption, but beyond a somewhat bizarre atmosphere and a horrific climax, it’s not really the most characteristically Lovecraftian film out there (no tentacles, occult flourishes, or spectacular monstrosities are on display, I’m afraid). Apparently Lovecraft himself even considered it one of his lesser, pulpier stories. Nonetheless, Re-Animator’s cult success helped affirm Lovecraft as an icon of the macabre, and cemented Stuart Gordon and Brian Yuzna as premier Lovecraft-to-film transcribers (with a catalog that includes From Beyond, Dagon, Necronomicon, and Castle Freak).

All in all, Re-Animator comes as advertised. There’s not much to write an essay on here. It’s unique, tasteless, over the top fun, and very few films pull it off better.

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

You seem to be on a real Lovecraft kick, have you seen The Last Winter or The Color Out of Space? I'd be interested in reading your reviews on either one, or both.

Yep. Rediscovering much of what I loved during my teens. I might put some more Lovecraft stuff in the movie tab eventually.

I've seen The Last Winter, if you're referring to the Fessenden one. I do love Fessenden's more artsy style, and I wish he'd make more movies. I've added The Color Out of Space to my list.

That's the one. Apparently his last directorial work was back in 2014 when he did a segment for ABCs of Death 2. He's still very involved in acting it seems. I'm also big on Lovecraft inspired films but there are so few that are actually good.

Yeah. He did a pretty crappy horror flick called Beneath as well. It seemed like a cash-in though; not the type of thing he usually does. He did write an awesome cinematic video game called Until Dawn though. If you have a PS4, it's highly recommended, and has one particular aspect that undoubtedly came from Fessenden.

I used to be big on Stuart Gordon, which helped me foray into Lovecraft. I also like The Haunted Palace (Corman & Price:up:), The Resurrected (1991), and 2005's Call of Cthulhu.

I'm more of a PC gamer, so hopefully the game comes to PC. Funny you mention The Resurrected (Shatterbrain?) because I just got it a few days ago and planned on watching it this week. I liked Call of Cthulhu as well. Another one I liked was She Creature, it was pretty good for a TV movie.

Me too. I've actually just begun playing Call of Cthulhu: DCOTE on PC. Cool and atmospheric, but loaded with bugs.

And yes, The Resurrected was directed by Dan O'Bannon (of Alien fame) as well. I'll keep an eye out for She Creature. Thanks!

Bride of Re-Animator (1989)
http://i.imgur.com/rILUOlM.jpg?1

So, after a quick and superfluous message from our favorite floating cranium, the story picks up eight months after the events of first film, where our two main characters (Cain and West) have found themselves in… Peru? Ok then. They are seen treating gravely wounded soldiers on the verge of death. One ends up dying. Just try to guess where this is going… Later, after West’s experiments extend to mixing and matching various body parts (in hilarious fashion), the duo attempts to assemble a new person from numerous sources (à la Frankenstein). Speedbumps they run into along the way include a token love interest, an ornery detective, another token love interest, the perils of sneaking dead bodies out of a crowded hospital in broad daylight, and Dr. Hill’s flying head. Of course, all of these festering elements lead to the customarily over the top gross-out finale.

Fortunately, the shameless Psycho rip off theme makes a (heavily altered) reprisal, this time with cheesier synths. Unfortunately, the rest of the score is… umm… pretty awful. It seriously hinders most would be funny or entertaining moments. The supporting acting is a little difficult to bear as well, but god*mn, Combs still embellishes every scene he’s in. They could make a Re-Animator in Space, and I’d probably consider it a must watch just for Combs. One positively notable aspect is Yuzna’s heightened sense of style, which features more strongly colored lighting and elaborately decorated sets. It’s all done with a foggy, low budget, Bava-esque charm. There are some more quotable one liners as well, although the dialogue really pushes the comedy aspect through the roof, often neglecting the horror label.
http://i.imgur.com/G0fPq70.png?1

Overall, Bride of Re-Animator has some virtues, and it attempts to carry on the spirit of the original film, but it’s just nowhere near as fun. The plot seems far less inspired, and tries to juggle too many new and uninteresting characters. At the very least, it’d make an apt double-billing with Frankenhooker (can’t say that about many movies). Fans of the original should still give it a go.

Yeah, I remember watching the trailer for it and thought it looked nice. Do the bugs hinder the game in any way? Small bugs I can deal with, but if it's anything like the bugs in Fallout I don't know if I can handle it. I can do it for Fallout, but I don't know about this.

Well, judging by the Steam reviews and youtube walkthroughs, there are varying experiences. But, my experience was pretty terrible. I loved the atmosphere and gameplay, so I tried to power through. But, about halfway through the game, it crashed every time I opened my inventory, rendering it impossible to finish. That's just the tip of the iceberg too. Apparently it works better on older systems. I wish they'd release a more polished version though.

Yikes. I think I'll just wait until they fix the bugs, assuming they plan to. They seriously need to stop releasing these games when they're clearly not ready.

Beyond Re-Animator (2003)
http://i.imgur.com/FWSJIGe.jpg?1

Beyond Re-Animator’s establishing scene follows a re-animated zombie committing B&E out of a dire craving for some milk (not letting his lack of a mouth stop him). This scene also features some of the most impassioned virtuoso child acting you’re likely to ever see. If you’re like me, I’m sure that the stellar efforts put in by these prodigious youths will alter your perception of what can be accomplished in youth acting. Bravo! Anyway, the important part of the scene is the resulting arrest of one Herbert West, and the return of the terrible glow stick formula. The movie then takes us 13 years into the future, wherein West must further his experiments within a prison overseen by an unethical warden.

Old familiar supporting characters are unfortunately absent, but of course Mr. Combs is back in the driver’s seat, this time with a few wrinkles on his face. Almost twenty years after the first film, Herbert West is no longer a scorned medical student, but a failed scientist with whom the other lead harnesses a fascination. The other protagonist, effectually named Howard Phillips, is basically Dan Cain’s spiritual replacement, assisting West’s studies yet disapproving of his ethics. Beyond the always reliable Jeffrey Combs, there are a couple of wonderfully madcap performances by inmates. Notably, the manic bald fellow and the drug fiend (who’s demise might be the best scene in the movie). “Hey man, got anymore? Just… another hit.” “I’d say you had enough.”

The hallmark biological opening credits are now scored by a lawsuit dodging original tune. It’s actually pretty good, and maintains hints of ye olde Psycho theme. Curiously enough, the true Psycho theme does make a cameo mid-movie. Perhaps the producers figured no one would make it that far. It’s also hard not to crack a smile at that familiarly ominous little violin riff that signifies trouble. This is actually the most mature sounding Re-Animator score yet (not necessarily meaning the best), forgoing the effectually dated elements of the other two. Instead, we get a somewhat more conventional score with some updated software. It even ventures into Danny Elfman territory towards the end.

The first half is pretty clunky. There are some tedious interactions between the supporting characters, groan-inducing dialogue, and occasional awkwardly dubbed broken accents from a predominantly Spanish cast. Thankfully, the second half is about as outrageously fun as you could hope for stemming from a less than stellar foundation. The ensuing plot (involving a prison riot) keeps it fresh too. I must also mention a marvelous credits scene involving a re-animated rat and a severed Johnson.

If you’ve seen the first two installments, you know what to expect: plenty of over-the-top effects-driven horror and bizarre humor. It’s crap cinema and proud of it.

Oh, and without this movie, we wouldn’t have the fabulous Move Your Dead Bones music video (youtube it… now). This pinnacle of musical expression would make the hopelessly inferior likes of Mozart, Elvis, The Beatles, Miles Davis, and Beethoven green with envy. I’m sure Lovecraft would be proud that his work helped spawn such a melodious tour de force.

I haven't seen Beyond Re-Animator since it was still relatively new. All I remember is that I did not like it at all, so seeing you give it a higher rating than Re-Animator 2 was a bit strange. Then again, I'm fairly lenient towards Bride of Re-Animator, though the first film is definitely my favourite by far.

After not not seeing either of the films for a number of years, I rewatched the first two with my room mate last Halloween (he had never seen either), and it sort of rekindled the love I have for those movies and that genre. I'm sort of kicking myself that I didn't make him watch them a couple of years earlier, because I met Jeffrey Combs at a sci-fi convention in 2012. If I had remembered how much I enjoyed the first film in particular, I definitely would have gotten him to sign my copy of the film and asked some questions at his Q&A panel instead of letting others ask boring Stargate questions.

Awesome! These are the kind of movies perfect to accommodate a watching party.:) Combs was one of my earliest favorites, and I'm similarly rediscovering these films that pervaded my teens. Honestly, before writing the reviews, it'd probably been around five years since I watched them.

And yeah, I enjoyed Beyond more, but it seems to be understandably polarizing. I just thought it was funnier and seemed less inclined to be like the first film, but it's a toss up. Beyond does lack the lovably 80s atmosphere though, which is why I think most prefer Bride.

Visitor of a Museum (1989)
http://i.imgur.com/EAQHTqI.jpg?1

Almost every scene in Visitor… is pervaded by a fiery backdrop or a bold red tint. It is indeed one of the darkest movies ever made. Literally; much of the lighting is just barely dim enough to make out essential details. I hope this isn’t just an effect of the copy I watched, because it really adds a claustrophobic touch. The environment seems to be hell on Earth, and the sluggish camera work coupled with deadpan acting hammer the infernal atmosphere home. Clearly, this isn’t going to catch many peoples’ fancy, but it should be a magnet for those that seek unrelenting depictions of darkness.

We begin with the film’s title appropriately engulfed in flames, accompanied by subtly eerie music. The narrative is set in an otherworldly rural town teeming with so called ‘degenerates,’ or people suffering from the hazardous effects of the environment. The ‘degenerates’ are, by and large, special needs citizens that are harshly discriminated against. Their main philosophy has driven them into a miserable, self-imposed repression, fearing that lust leads to widespread defilement. Their strongly held spiritual beliefs are ridiculed by ‘normal’ people, and their persecution has driven them to collectively live in a dilapidated reservation (with the most hellish atmosphere of all). This is a world lit by fire. Even when not directly shown, the perpetual flames flicker and illuminate most of the surroundings, sort of similar to the way that water can project a wavy texture on a surface when lit properly. The environment outside of the reservation looks like a post-apocalyptic garbage dump with mangled traces of industry and circumspect citizens. And later, the low tide ‘holy desert’ is a wasteland presented with dust-ridden air, drab vegetation, and scarce tokens of human remains.

The main character of the film is a quiet man searching for a divine museum that is only accessible via perilous hike during a certain low tide (or inaccessible, as Karl Pilkington would say). Given his sympathetic nature, our protagonist forms an intensely spiritual connection with the ‘degenerate’ people, becoming their foremost hope for mortal escape. This shapes the plot for a film largely about, as fairly as I can interpret, the perils of zealotry (juxtaposed with the hope that salvation may bring escape from a life ruled by despair). The real question becomes whether the protagonist’s journey will lead to true salvation, death, or madness.

The film’s director, Konstantin Lopushanskiy, was apparently a protégé of Andrei Tarkovsky, and indeed it shows. His radical visual style typically includes strong tints and highly contrasted cinematography. Lopushanskiy was even a production assistant on Stalker, which is an archetype of sorts for this style. Also in the vein of Tarkovsky, the movie moves at a snail’s pace. Within a two-hour and fifteen-minute runtime, there are few cuts and myriad lingering distant shots. The score isn’t out to sell any records either; it’s just a pretty straightforward assemblage of dark ambient soundscapes to amplify the mood. To be fair, all of this does make Visitor… pretty vulnerable to criticisms of pretention.

This is not a very story-driven film. Here, the style is part of the substance. It may sound unfavorable, but the narrative would hardly leave an impression without the strongly stylized setting, and the film would lose most of its cult appeal. With somber direction and pervasive red, it’s very comparable to Lars von Trier’s The Element of Crime as well. For those, like me, that are suckers for visually driven movies, Visitor’s bold and fascinating visual character is enough to overlook shortcomings.
http://i.imgur.com/ZCSM6lI.png?1http://i.imgur.com/gGvUinc.png?1
http://i.imgur.com/v41dnNv.png?1http://i.imgur.com/LJzwghR.png?1
http://i.imgur.com/9Lo4jP8.png?1http://i.imgur.com/kTpRFGl.png?1

It's been years since I've seen this pop up again. I meant to watch it years ago but never got around to it, story of my life. But after reading this I'm bumping it up and finally watching it. Great review.

http://i.imgur.com/o0st8gF.gif

Thanks! Hope you like it.

The Short Films of Jan Svankmajer (1964-1993)

Ok… for something different, I’m going to go through Jan Svankmajer’s catalogue before it was overtaken by feature length films. For those unfamiliar with the Svank, his films are probably most prominently known for their imaginative stop-motion effects, surrealist narratives, and absurdist humor. Svankmajer also seems to have an uncanny interest in… umm… eating, and loves to shoot close-ups of mouths chewing on food with over the top voracity, as well as occasionally presenting pieces of food (and tongues) as living subjects.

His career trajectory did begin with some enigmatically philosophical (and dare I say, pretentious) art films, but as decades add up, you can see an improved and more self-aware filmmaker develop with an honest penchant for experimentation. Even if his style might not strictly appeal to many, his enthralling use of stop motion coupled with a unique sense of humor should at least be appreciable by most. His works have also been regarded as highly influential to the likes of Terry Gilliam and the Brothers Quay, although Svankmajer noticeably puts less emphasis on visual beauty in lieu of mostly uncomfortable and drab environments.


The Last Trick (1964) –
Svankmajer’s first film follows two magicians as they competitively perform a series of bizarre tricks. The stop motion is actually at a minimum, and the magicians are performed by live actors wearing ornate masks. There’s also some interesting camera trickery that brings Georges Méliès to mind.

Johann Sebastian Back (1965) –
Some attractive black and white cinematography makes this one of Svankmajer’s more visually appealing flicks. Unfortunately, it’s purely visual. This is essentially abstract; it simply captures a series of gritty, ramshackle walls as seemingly random holes manifest themselves out of harmony with the potent organ music.

A Game with Stones (1965) –
This presents an abstruse scenario involving a variety of stones being dropped into a bucket, triggering characteristically bizarre stop motion. The animations are fine and interesting, but there are plenty of better examples among this list.

Et Cetera (1966) –
http://i.imgur.com/N73MU4V.png?1
A featureless figure on a page develops a life of its own, experimenting with a multitude of other suddenly material objects on said page. The animation gives the impression of ink moving on paper; another attractive experiment that is pretty unique specially to this film.

Punch and Judy (1966) –
Two small puppets can’t come to an agreement on how to care for a guinea pig, and fight to the death over it. This is a really funny & creative story featuring Svankmajer’s uniquely gritty models. Given the specialization of puppetry, it’s also a possible prelude to the Quay brothers.

Historia Nature (1967) –
Another pretty abstract film showcasing various forms of life through fantastic animations (only momentarily interrupted by a man eating). It’s still strongly open to interpretation, but the accompanying visuals aren’t as seemingly arbitrary as some of Svank’s other early works.

The Flat / Byt (1968) –
http://i.imgur.com/2pHQY6t.png?1
A tortuous apartment seems to go out of its way to stop a man from doing anything productive. This is amply weird and surreal, but not overly ambiguous. It’s fascinating and amusing enough for any film fan to appreciate. The absurdist scenario and presentation is more characteristic of Svank’s later films, but being from 1968, the animation may not be as refined. It’s still a great starting point though.

The Garden (1968) –
We see two men enter a property encompassed by a fence made up of live humans. Svankmajer forgoes his signature animation here in an attempt to make a somewhat more grounded film (still containing some odd camera cuts and close-ups). The story is pure Bunuel-esque surrealism, and subject to quite a few varying interpretations I’m sure. Svankmajer himself apparently says that this is about freedom (a common theme for him).

Picnic with Weismann (1968) –
Material objects come to life and fulfill mostly ambiguous roles. Despite being filmed on a sunny day, the imagery isn’t as striking as one would probably hope for, and the surrealistic bits don’t stick out among Svankmajer’s more notable efforts.

A Quiet Week in the House (1969) –
A man cautiously visits a seemingly uninhabited house and repeats an odd daily ritual... again and again. As the plot indicates, it can get repetitive (even for a 20-minute movie), but it still has some typically appreciable stop motion and a cool sepia tint for the non-animated bits. The animations are among this list’s most unusual, which means it’s a good film to ward off intruders.

Don Juan / Don Sajn (1970) –
http://i.imgur.com/2O0psUY.png?1
Until Alice was released almost 20 years later, this seems to be the closest Svankmajer got to a feature. It tells a dark rendition of Don Juan through live puppetry (à la The Last Trick), an idea further explored in Faust (1994). The puppets are gritty looking, and the tale is set amidst both organic and faux-puppet theatre backgrounds. Svankmajer’s ironic sense of humor is also at full mast here.

Maybe it’s just a result of specializing in short films, but the unstable camera movement, quick zooms, unusual close-ups, erratic cuts, and briefly intercut images make many of Svank’s films really ADHD-conscious. Don Sajn could’ve been drawn out to feature length in anyone else’s hands.

The Ossuary (1970) –
http://i.imgur.com/jN71ePB.png?1
We are taken on a tour through an ossuary (burial site) ornamented by a massive cluster of bones stemming from victims of centuries-old plagues and wars. Many of the bones are displayed in elaborate architectural and decorative fashion. Morbid as they are, the decorations are very absorbing, and look vaguely like something out of an H.R. Giger painting. The narrator (who spends much of the time warning people not to vandalize the bones) is the ossuary’s tour guide. There is a macabre juxtaposition which sees the symbols of death treated casually by the narrator and frenetically by the director. Shots are frequently cut with flashes of close ups; the chaotic camera work pronounces the horror of the place.

There is no trademark over the top animation or surrealism, just an experimentally shot document of an interesting subject that Svankmajer appropriately treats without humor.

Jabberwocky (1971) –
Surreal animations accompany a brief narration of Jabberwocky and a wonderfully odd soundtrack. The visual accompaniments are as abstruse and surreal as ever, but are also richly detailed and totally mesmerizing. Focusing mainly on everyday objects come to life (clearly a pervasive theme by this point), this may be the fullest Svankmajer reached his potential with stop motion until Dimensions of Dialogue.

Leonardo’s Diary (1972) –
Da Vinci’s drawings are remarkably simulated and juxtaposed with symbolic footage of turbulent modern civilization (namely warfare and sports). Given that the animation is driven by drawings done in the style of Da Vinci, it may not be the most representative film on the list, but it’s still very impressive.

Castle of Otranto (1977) –
If it weren’t for the live action Czech scenes, you could almost pass this off as one of Gilliam’s animated shorts. It tells its story mainly through animated cartoon-ish cutouts, with brief live shots spliced in. The live action scenes are filmed with a surprising regularity for Svankmajer, forgoing his usual idiosyncratic camera work. Also, maybe it’s just me being simpleminded, but the animated bits are pretty hard to follow without much knowledge of the base story.

Fall of the House of Usher (1982) –
A narrator recites verses from the Poe story, but the accompanying visuals depict no actual characters. There is some beautiful black and white photography, and the Gothic tone is complemented by some of Svankmajer’s most abstract animations. For those unfamiliar with the Poe story, this would be nearly impossible to follow, making it one of Svank’s most ‘difficult’ movies. An equally positive and negative aspect of short films is that there is room to experiment without really committing to a project, so naturally, some experimental ideas just don’t work as well as others.

Dimensions of Dialogue (1983) –
http://i.imgur.com/RRafgt6.png?1
Maybe this isn’t as strictly entertaining as some of his other 80’s shorts, but there’s plenty of admiration to be found in this showcase of (possibly) Svankmajer’s most impressive animation. For that reason, it’s often considered his best. Being an excellent representation of Svank’s style, it’s also a good place to decide whether or not these flicks are gonna be for you.

Down to the Cellar (1983) –
A little girl ventures into an unnerving old cellar, wherein live many oddly representational horrors. Some of these horrors seem to symbolize the girl’s deepest fears stemming from childhood vulnerability.

This is another good entry point into Svankmajer’s catalogue. His films often contain frenetic cuts and animation, but the measured, horror-esque tenor of this one allows the atmosphere to settle a bit, and the surrealist bits engage curiosity without going ambiguously over the top.

The Pendulum, the Pit, and Hope (1984) –
http://i.imgur.com/FB4Dvnk.png?1
http://i.imgur.com/2B19ttM.png?1
A man struggles to free himself from confinements before the infamous pendulum descends upon him. Although we’re given little context for these events, this may be the most straightforward story in a Svankmajer short. Most of this is shot from a first person perspective to help the viewer immerse themselves. There’s some great attention to detail (such as the pendulum banging against the walls) that accentuates odd suspense. Black and white photography also helps foster the gritty dungeon setting (with some awesome art designs).

Manly Games / Virile Games (1988) –
In this overt satire of aggressive sports culture, a man gluttonously watches a football (soccer) game with a particular emphasis on barbarism. Players are creatively killed in sadistic head popping fashion, and replaced with football savvy caskets. The only temporary reprieve from the barbarism is a commercial break showcasing kittens. This is one of Svank’s funniest, and includes plenty of his signature animation put to good use.

Meat Love (1989) –
Title is self-explanatory; two pieces of meat engage in romance. It’s weird and funny, and it’s taken me longer to write this review than it will for you to watch the movie.

Flora (1989) –
In a span of approximately 30 seconds, a man made up of myriad vegetables is seen withering. It’s interesting, but a longer runtime wouldn’t have hurt.

Darkness, Light, Darkness (1989) –
Pieces of a body (each with their own character) slowly self-assemble within an ill-fitting room. This is one of Svankmajer’s most renowned for the typically impressive animation and distinctive absurdism.

The Death of Stalinism in Bohemia (1991) –
Some of his other films may carry underlying philosophical themes, but this is Svankmajer’s most overtly political film. Unfortunately, without a great understanding of Czechoslovakian political history, I’m somewhat left in the dark. It still contains many of the characteristic furnishes you’d expect though.

Food (1993) –
http://i.imgur.com/1dJgjMz.png?1
It’s difficult to pinpoint exactly where Svankmajer’s obsession with food began, but it certainly climaxes here. We get three independent segments: Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner. In Lunch, two pixilated men at a restaurant are continually ignored by their waiter, so they resort to devouring anything in their proximity. The gobbling samples really make it. I’m not even gonna try to explain the other two, but they both comfortably fit among Svankmajer’s best scenarios. For those who crave surrealism, this is one of the most oddly enjoyable and imaginative short films you’re liable to find.



BONUS:
Hugh Cornwell - Another Kind of Love (1988)
Svankmajer’s frenetic style works perfectly for a music video, and his animations have no doubt inspired more than a few others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9CxceMYDlM

Sorcerer (1977)
http://i.imgur.com/EwpUAFg.jpg?1

Sorcerer opens with some brief tone-setting action. This short-lived establishment is followed by some borderline tedious plot development. Presumably, anyone watching Sorcerer knows the basic premise, and half an hour of alternately set development may seem a tad wearisome. Essentially, each character is shown mucking up a crime, precipitating their fleet to one of the most undesirable corners of the Earth. When we see the film’s dejected Latin American village, it’s presented as a war-torn, politically unstable, fly-infested, rubble-strewn sh*thole. With the austere combination of industrial waste and lush natural landscapes, it’s actually beautiful. Our anti-heroes, depressed by the territorial backbreaking labor and no-shave lifestyle, would likely disagree.
http://i.imgur.com/Gspw1OT.jpg?1

After an oil well is sabotaged in a way that would make Michael Bay gush, our leads are drafted to transport highly volatile dynamite through nearly impossible terrain. Finally, once the ramshackle trucks are presented and boarded, the fulfilled anticipation feels momentous (fostered by some beautiful nighttime cinematography). Seeing the trucks revealed in this is akin to seeing the T-Rex for the first time in Jurassic Park; the buildup beforehand was fine and dandy, but now… sh*t just got real. Thus, an exceptionally intense man vs. nature tale in the jungle commences. Four men attempt to precariously cross rickety bridges, venture around fallen trees and steep cliffs, deal with the pesky local populace, and struggle through heavy rainfall. Once it really gets going, this movie is something of a marvel. Without the convenient use of modern special effects, the stunts in the film probably mirror the backbreaking work depicted (analogous to Fitzcarraldo).
http://i.imgur.com/UZfZv2F.jpg?1

The fundamental tale is a re-adaption of the novel The Wages of Fear (also the basis for the more renowned 1953 film). This time it’s afforded a more vivid, colorized setting. It’s not simply a difference of older vs. newer production though. The 1953 film still rivals Sorcerer in grit and desperation, but Sorcerer notably presents its leading characters as less sympathetic, more authentically dispirited runaway fugitives. Despite the characters possessing their share of unlikeable traits, Roy Scheider (playing the morally scrupulous thief who refuses to carry a gun) is the closest thing we have to a protagonist. The noteworthy Francisco Rabal, with his liquor drenched vocal chords, has a complex character arc as well.

This is a bastion of 70s grit. Each character sheds enough sweat to drop a weight class before a fight. Then there’s the characteristic granular Tangerine Dream score, and the ultra-realistic effects (minus the symptomatically squeaky ricocheting bullet sounds and ketchup blood). Despite some occasional stylish cinematographic bits (notably the amazing rainy bridge scene), most of the movie isn’t too gaudy. Instead, it ferments stark realism. Even with some exaggerated thrills later on, the somewhat subdued acting and pacing really enhances the feeling of immersion. It takes a while to take off, but once it’s go time, the suspense is tauter than a judoka’s grip.

Blood and Black Lace (1964)
http://i.imgur.com/cbu1qm3.jpg

Mario Bava’s distinctive atmosphere and slasher elements laid the groundwork for countless genre flicks to follow. Blood and Black Lace is his most successful foray into the Giallo (thriller-y) catalogue, despite being lauded predominantly for his Gothic horror entries like Black Sunday and Black Sabbath.

This tale follows a faceless killer preying upon young fashionistas. All the while, a detective attempts to unravel a complex web of scheming involving money, drugs, and more than a few suspicious characters. The fundamental premise is simple, with some superfluous red herrings sprinkled in. The story certainly isn’t its drawing power, but the somewhat monotonous and predictable crime plot just kind of stalls the movie until the interesting bits surface. However, some may appreciate that the killer isn’t of the impossibly competent ilk that we’ve now come to expect from slashers, and does show some human vulnerabilities.

Even though the plot is pretty pedestrian, the style is borderline surreal. The lighting, especially, gives us sharp casts of pink, red, blue, and green. The nighttime shadows are also exploited for all they’re worth. A modern setting didn’t stop Bava from inserting his signature Gothic flourishes either (mainly through some décor and characteristic cinematography). Although, for the most part, period costuming and foggy atmosphere is replaced with an unmistakably 60s panache lead by cool easy listening lounge music, colorful retro sets, and poofy hair.

The movie’s main estate is brimming with stylish mannequins and some graceful set pieces. Bava uses some well-paced tracking shots to capture the estate in all of its splendor, not leaving much detail to the imagination. Due to budget constraints, the moving shots were also apparently taken using a child’s wagon as a track. Maybe it’s just me, but vast, unusually detailed rooms screened with surrealistic lighting and filmed in motion vaguely brings Peter Greenaway or David Lynch to mind.
http://i.imgur.com/kFZhzJD.png?1

Film purists typically dread dubbing, but of course it’s inevitable here. English is also the apparent spoken language, even though the voices still sync up poorly. Depending on what you hope to get out of this, it could be a hindrance or a charm. Still, those reluctant of classic Italian horror because of a semi-exploitative reputation (set by later examples) needn’t worry too much here. There’s plenty of less-than-subtle sexuality and violence, but given its period, it's far less explicit than similar movies that would come just a decade later.

Before watching, be mindful that Blood and Black Lace has aged about as well as a 50 year old loaf of bread. The campy dubbing, passé thriller music cues (DUN!), and histrionic acting seem to really only be appreciable for their retro or low-budget charm. You sort of have to embrace the defects to enjoy. Nonetheless, it is a unique genre entry that lent much of its style to an array of other beloved films.
http://i.imgur.com/BN9ml8N.png?1

Night of the Creeps (1986)
http://i.imgur.com/DkX98NX.jpg?1

Night of the Creeps kicks off with a cool, characteristically 80s credit sequence (championed by font and score) that appears to have been used as a blueprint for Stranger Things. The story unexpectedly commences with little thumb monsters running around what looks to be a discarded set from Alien. Unfortunately, beginning with such a wildly out of place scene sets a standard of unpredictability that the rest of the film doesn’t even come close to matching.

After our thumb warriors shoot a capsule down to Earth, we get a flashback in a painfully obvious 50s setting. Prepare to get hit over the head with 50s dialogue, cadences, music, cars, and clothing all crammed into about 5 minutes. It can be an amusing caricature though. Shortly thereafter, we’re transported to present day, which also seems to be a caricature of modern sorority life. We’re then introduced to an archetypical cast of jocks and geeks, a couple of whom discover the decades-hidden secret alien contaminant and unwittingly unleash it upon the campus. The contaminant comes in the form of brain chewing creepy crawlies accompanied by some nice wet squishy samples.

The dialogue has a strange dynamic of going from annoying to terrific. K, bros? Maybe the fact that most of it is representational holds it back a little. It mainly serves to reinforce character stereotypes, but there are some really great bits in between (such as Cameron’s confession). Overall, it’s not Tarantino, but it is funny and self-aware enough to carry the movie. “What is this a homicide or a bad b-movie?”

The protagonists are likeable enough, even though they’re cookie-cutter examples of characters you’ve seen in other stuff. Though, Detective Cameron (Tom Atkins) is actually depicted well. He is the depressed cop traumatized by his past who finds renewed vitality once he sees a purpose, yadda yadda. Clichéd as it may be, his character arc is closest the movie comes to having a serious emotional component, which stands out in a story otherwise about brain sucking leeches. Also, what would this movie be without a symptomatic Dick Miller cameo?

Night of the Creeps is a pretty unfiltered love letter to ye olde sci-fi horror romps of the 50s and 60s. It’s a zombie movie as much as Firefly is a Western. There are zombies, but they’re backed by an atypical source and other classic Hollywood inspired elements, dissimilar to the garden-variety diseased biters that many have no doubt become accustomed to. The best that can be said is that it’s fun and has a self-aware personality, which goes a long way in camp movies.
http://i.imgur.com/tsG5jdi.png?1

The Most Dangerous Game (1932)
http://i.imgur.com/GWvWOzA.jpg?1

Even though hunting for sport is mostly met with disapproval now, it speaks volumes when a prominent narrative evaluation written a century ago is still relevant. Featuring an intensely argumentative examination of hunting ethics, it’s no surprise that the short story is still widely circulated. The philosophical dialogues in the movie do seem a little tacky, but it’s only because they’re purposefully at the forefront. The movie is an entertaining romp, but it seems to be more of an analysis with a story to underpin it, rather than just a thriller plot with a perfunctory message. Maybe I’m the only one who sees it this way though, since everything I read about the film seems to skip over the commentary.:shrug:

The argument revolves around the moral uncertainty of hunting for sport. Though Bob (our prototypical Hollywood protagonist) justifies his own hunting ventures, he does seem to be painted as naively inconsiderate. His character arc could be seen as the crux of the movie’s message. He initially has no qualms about hunting animals with inferior means of defense, but getting a taste of his own medicine no doubt leads to further consideration from the audience. The film does this without outright condemning big-game hunts; there are characters that vicariously speak for numerous views.

The basic plot revolves around Bob, a noted big game hunting advocate, as he’s suddenly shipwrecked in the proximity of a remote island. His only resort becomes a creepy estate that could double as Dracula’s summer retreat. Zaroff, the Count in charge of the estate, welcomes his strategically shipwrecked guests with a classy demeanor. As it turns out, Zaroff is something of a serial killer (complete with a ‘trophy room’) that excuses his own actions under the guise of sportsmanlike hunting. This all simmers into a really fun, suspense-ridden second half that sees Bob and Zaroff attempting to outwit each other amidst the jungly backdrop. Yes, it’s all very convenient that the apologetic game hunter ends up being hunted himself, but the irony really seems to exist mainly as reinforcement for the movie’s commentary. Interestingly, Zaroff is the only voice in the film that overwhelmingly supports Bob’s hunting advocacy. He also serves as Bob’s intellectual superior.
http://i.imgur.com/6Jki9i1.png?1

In its original form, the film was apparently about 15 minutes longer (I really wish the extra footage of Zaroff’s ‘trophy room’ could’ve been saved). That may be a reason why some scenes seem amusingly abrupt, especially in the beginning. There’s plenty of foreshadowing dialogue to snicker at too, though Zaroff’s ‘most dangerous game’ speech is remarkably well delivered. Leslie Banks (Zaroff) gave a wonderfully theatrical performance that was unfortunately swept under the rug following code-driven suppression of the film. I could’ve done without Robert Armstrong’s hammy drunk performance though. His demise almost turned Zaroff into a personal anti-hero.

On the cusp of King Kong, Ernest B. Shoedsack was at the helm. The two films were apparently filmed simultaneously, and King Kong uses a host of the same jungle sets. Not to mention that the films share two of the same stars (Fay Wray and Robert Armstrong). The jungle sets provide a nice backdrop for the second half, and Zaroff’s estate sets a great foreboding tone early on. Some of the rough, glowing timeworn frames give many of the shots an almost dreamlike beauty as well, similar to the effect that Guy Maddin attempts to recreate in his stuff.

This movie’s reputation was irreparably damaged when the Hays code was set in, leading to it being withheld for a generation. Indeed, some of the props and implications are pretty rough. Apart from some inescapably cheesy affectations, it’s aged very well, and is definitely one of the better examples of early horror.
http://i.imgur.com/wUJHFZ1.png?1

This was recommended to me via the Mofo Chain Challenge thread.

Furry Vengeance (2010)
http://i.imgur.com/0o6rSDb.jpg?1

5 minutes in: This movie opens up with cute little animals committing a charming, family friendly attempted murder.

15 minutes in: Oh boy. Apparently the lead’s 16-year-old son hates video games and is morally opposed to money. Clearly a true-to-life representation of adolescents. Also, the lead’s wife likes to gobble at turkeys because she thinks they’re psychic.

25 minutes in: The animals can’t talk, but they are excellent charades players.

35 minutes in: Hooray. Attempted homicide looks like it’s going to be a recurring theme here… and Brendan Fraser’s family seems to take his near death experiences appallingly well. There’s also a scene with Brendan Fraser on a treadmill. I can take hyper-intelligent animals, but there’s only so much disbelief I can suspend.

40 minutes in: People are using flip phones. Is this a period film?

45 minutes in: Brendan Fraser has been wearing an ill-fitting pink sweater with his belly hanging out for the past five minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgbc28A7elU

55 minutes in: He just referred to his genitals as his ‘no-no zone.’

56 minutes in: *heavy breathing* Guys… I don’t know if I can make it.

60 minutes in: May I humbly request that the film blissfully indulge us by refraining from stripping Mr. Fraser for the remai… nevermind.

70 minutes in: If the movie really wants me to like the animals, it would have them try to murder the rest of the cast.

80 minutes in: Pretty sure Fraser’s son is the biological product of Sarah McLachlan.

Please don’t bring Gandhi into this.

Please don’t bring Braveheart into this.

Please don’t bring more poo into thi… god*mnit.

Credits: We’ve got a Disney-friendly rendition of Insane in the Brain lip-synced by the cast.
http://i.imgur.com/pmbXZv1.gif

End:
http://i.imgur.com/bmZYAk4.jpg

Ok, it’s clear that the people who made this movie knew what they were doing. Like, it looks like it was made by industry professionals who clocked in and fulfilled their minimum duties. Honestly, it’s probably not as excruciating as I made it sound. It’s the type of thing they’d play in my dentist’s office to distract the kids.

Thanks to Sci-Fi Slob for the rec (although I’m wondering whether or not he hates me now). At the least, it was fun to write about.

Re: Re93animator's Review Thread
 

re93animator I think your Watch Along And Comment reviews are even funnier than mine :laugh: