Make Your Picks

A scary thing happened on the way to the Movie Forums - Horrorcrammers

Tools    





Victim of The Night
I haven't seen it in years either and keep meaning to rewatch it but never get around to it.


I guess it's a game of chicken between who here (re)watches it first.
Well, my memory of it was that it stood out from the crowd and punched above its weight as I like to say, so it may be me.



Hey, by the way, it's been a solid dozen years since I saw Let Sleeping Corpses Lie, aka The Living Dead At Manchester Morgue. I really liked it then but I'm being pretty selective with my Horrorthon slots this year.
What sayeth the council?
I was convinced I'd seen this, so I watched a trailer to reacquaint myself with it and now I'm pretty sure I haven't seen it after all .
Looks like a good one



It's good and quirky with a relaxed feeling to it compared to most zombie flicks. It does not have high suspense and the feeling of being isolated like in Romero's, this is more "weird shit go down in the english country side", starts out slow-burning and later goes into more gory action. I got Synapse's edition and watched it last halloween and will for sure rewatch it. 7/10



Manchester Morgue and Tombs of the Blind Dead are both blond spots for me that I picked up copies of in the last few months. I think I was planning to watch both this October.





The Living Dead at the Manchester Morgue aka Let Sleeping Corpses Lie, 1974

Edna (Christina Galbo) meets George (Ray Lovelock) when she accidentally backs her car into his motorcycle. Agreeing to give him a lift to his destination, the two end up investigating a strange mystery when Edna's sister, Katie (Jeannine Mestre) becomes the suspect in the gruesome murder of her husband. Edna witnessed a man at the site of the murder, but there's something very strange about him. And how is it all connected to a new radioactive technology being used to treat crop fields in the area . . . ?

Alright, so this is pretty good. While I would say that it doesn't quite cross that line into greatness, there's always something interesting happening whether it's a character moment, some humor, or an arresting visual.

Overall the main characters are likable, if only because they are pitted against a police inspector (Arthur Kennedy) who is so closed-minded and frustrating that you can't help but root for them. But George is a lot to take at times. While I liked him more as the film went on--if only because he was one of the only things standing between order and chaos--things get off to a rough start. After Edna smashes his bike, he guilts her into giving him a ride. Which, okay, fair. But then he demands to be the one who drives. And then when she lights a cigarette to help her stay awake (gosh, wonder why she didn't want to fall asleep in a car with a stranger who just bullied his way into her vehicle), he takes the cigarette out of her mouth for himself.

Thankfully, George's self-righteousness and aggressive behavior finds a more appropriate target as the film goes on. He quickly makes the connection between strange happenings and the new radioactive machinery being used in the nearby fields.

Probably my favorite thing about this film is the way that Edna and George get pinned between the arrogance of the scientists and the buffoonery of the police. The scientists refuse to concede that there might be anything wrong with their invention, despite the fact that all of a sudden babies born nearby are exhibiting strange behaviors. And the police are quick to decide that George and Edna must be Satanists, committing these grisly murders as part of a terror spree or dark mass.

There are also some really strong visuals at times. I think every horror fan, whether they know where it's from or not, is familiar with the infamous "naked corpse" (but it's a guy so . . . not naked) with the autopsy stitching down his body and wrapped head. In certain sequences, the film really captures the zombie dread of "slow and steady." The special effects are also enjoyable bloody and visceral.

As for the reanimated corpses themselves, the film is a bit more hit and miss here. This is one of those movies where the monsters are just as fast or strong or smart as they need to be for a certain scene to work. So when a random nurse is being killed, they gut her like a fish in about 30 seconds. When the main characters is being attacked, they slowly make their way toward her and then gently paw at her so that George can come to the rescue.

I do give this one a lot of credit for its conclusion. Horror movies can often faceplant at the very end, and this one really nails it. It's a strong, unexpected ending to the story and one that is both satisfying and charged.




Victim of The Night


The Living Dead at the Manchester Morgue aka Let Sleeping Corpses Lie, 1974

Edna (Christina Galbo) meets George (Ray Lovelock) when she accidentally backs her car into his motorcycle. Agreeing to give him a lift to his destination, the two end up investigating a strange mystery when Edna's sister, Katie (Jeannine Mestre) becomes the suspect in the gruesome murder of her husband. Edna witnessed a man at the site of the murder, but there's something very strange about him. And how is it all connected to a new radioactive technology being used to treat crop fields in the area . . . ?

Alright, so this is pretty good. While I would say that it doesn't quite cross that line into greatness, there's always something interesting happening whether it's a character moment, some humor, or an arresting visual.

Overall the main characters are likable, if only because they are pitted against a police inspector (Arthur Kennedy) who is so closed-minded and frustrating that you can't help but root for them. But George is a lot to take at times. While I liked him more as the film went on--if only because he was one of the only things standing between order and chaos--things get off to a rough start. After Edna smashes his bike, he guilts her into giving him a ride. Which, okay, fair. But then he demands to be the one who drives. And then when she lights a cigarette to help her stay awake (gosh, wonder why she didn't want to fall asleep in a car with a stranger who just bullied his way into her vehicle), he takes the cigarette out of her mouth for himself.

Thankfully, George's self-righteousness and aggressive behavior finds a more appropriate target as the film goes on. He quickly makes the connection between strange happenings and the new radioactive machinery being used in the nearby fields.

Probably my favorite thing about this film is the way that Edna and George get pinned between the arrogance of the scientists and the buffoonery of the police. The scientists refuse to concede that there might be anything wrong with their invention, despite the fact that all of a sudden babies born nearby are exhibiting strange behaviors. And the police are quick to decide that George and Edna must be Satanists, committing these grisly murders as part of a terror spree or dark mass.

There are also some really strong visuals at times. I think every horror fan, whether they know where it's from or not, is familiar with the infamous "naked corpse" (but it's a guy so . . . not naked) with the autopsy stitching down his body and wrapped head. In certain sequences, the film really captures the zombie dread of "slow and steady." The special effects are also enjoyable bloody and visceral.

As for the reanimated corpses themselves, the film is a bit more hit and miss here. This is one of those movies where the monsters are just as fast or strong or smart as they need to be for a certain scene to work. So when a random nurse is being killed, they gut her like a fish in about 30 seconds. When the main characters is being attacked, they slowly make their way toward her and then gently paw at her so that George can come to the rescue.

I do give this one a lot of credit for its conclusion. Horror movies can often faceplant at the very end, and this one really nails it. It's a strong, unexpected ending to the story and one that is both satisfying and charged.

That's what I wanted to hear.



I wrote a rambling, disoriented and complete obtuse write up of Manchester Morgue during the pandemic, and it was mostly focused on trying to find exactly where it's allure is for me. There is something very low key and almost average about much of it, and yet I find it deeply unnerving and quickly fall under its thrall when watching it. Not sure if I ever figured out how it does it, and considering I ended my review with me in a desert eating handfuls of and, it seems unlikely.



I wrote a rambling, disoriented and complete obtuse write up of Manchester Morgue during the pandemic, and it was mostly focused on trying to find exactly where it's allure is for me. There is something very low key and almost average about much of it, and yet I find it deeply unnerving and quickly fall under its thrall when watching it. Not sure if I ever figured out how it does it, and considering I ended my review with me in a desert eating handfuls of and, it seems unlikely.
I think that the low key nature of it is what makes it very unnerving and scary. This is a movie where no one seems to ever achieve the level of (necessary!) panic that the situation calls for. The Inspector stays droll and detached--except for when he's smacking George around--the whole time.

You keep thinking "Surely now, this person will XYZ," and then they just don't.

As a viewer, we see all of the pieces and (via George) put them together. But in the reality of the film, the doctor noticing the weird stuff with the babies isn't talking to the guys running the machine, and none of those people are talking to the police.

I think that part of the terror is just how much bad stuff happens, and continues to happen, because of either inaction or indirect harmful actions.

Despite it having several flaws, it's the kind of film I could easily see myself rewatching.



I think that the low key nature of it is what makes it very unnerving and scary. This is a movie where no one seems to ever achieve the level of (necessary!) panic that the situation calls for. The Inspector stays droll and detached--except for when he's smacking George around--the whole time.

You keep thinking "Surely now, this person will XYZ," and then they just don't.

As a viewer, we see all of the pieces and (via George) put them together. But in the reality of the film, the doctor noticing the weird stuff with the babies isn't talking to the guys running the machine, and none of those people are talking to the police.

I think that part of the terror is just how much bad stuff happens, and continues to happen, because of either inaction or indirect harmful actions.

Despite it having several flaws, it's the kind of film I could easily see myself rewatching.

That very well could be it. Or at least a large part.


I was modestly underwhelmed the first time I saw it, about 7 years ago. Then when I watched it again during the lockdown, I couldn't get it out of my head. I think I ended up watching it four or even five times over a couple of days. Just to unravel it's routine seeming mysteries





Barbarian, 2022

Tess (Georgina Campbell) is in Detroit for a job interview. But when she arrives late one rainy night to her AirBnB, she discovers that a man named Keith (Bill Skarsgard) is already staying there, seemingly the result of an accidental double-booking. After some initial awkwardness, the two agree to share the house, and Tess ends the evening by locking herself into the bedroom. In the middle of the night, though, she discovers her door open, and from there things get strange.

I went into this one knowing basically nothing about it. (I'd seen a trailer when I saw The Black Phone in the theater. I'm realizing now that trailer did a good job of not giving too much away!). I'm definitely glad, as there are so many elements of the film that I absolutely did not see coming, in both a plot sense and a structural sense.

Campbell is an engaging lead, and her charisma becomes increasingly important as Tess begins taking risks that had my audience wondering out loud several times "Why are you doing that?!". I was right there with them, but I liked her enough that it pulled me through some of the more improbable moments. Skarsgard also does a very nice job as Keith. The film manages to walk you very nicely along wondering whether Keith is a creep, or just a normal guy whose attempts not to look creepy slightly backfire.

As the movie goes on, layers of dark comedy creep in along with some gritty, gory stuff. It's a story that never tips its hand about how it will all end.

My only complaints were those moments of characters making really poor decisions. I appreciate that the film sort of tried to establish that certain "solutions" wouldn't actually work, but it wasn't quite enough. I also felt like one aspect of character work, done later in the film, fell awkwardly between not being long enough AND being too abrupt.

Really enjoyable. A great rainy Sunday movie. (Though if you can see it without being seated near people covered in white supremacy tattoos, I would recommend that.)




[(Though if you can see it without being seated near people covered in white supremacy tattoos, I would recommend that.)

How’d they react to it? I imagine the choice of protagonists and antagonists would stir up something from them.



How’d they react to it? I imagine the choice of protagonists and antagonists would stir up something from them.
(MAJOR SPOILERS, PEOPLE!)

Well, the one guy was like
WARNING: spoilers below
"Huh, I was hopin' they were gonna screw!" when Keith left Tess alone in the bedroom.

One of the women said, "What a d*ck!" at the water tower scene.

They were viscerally disappointed when it turned out that Long's character was actually a rapist and not the victim of a lying woman.

At the very end one of the women said, "Well that was stupid."


So, you know, quality audiencing.



(MAJOR SPOILERS, PEOPLE!)

Well, the one guy was like
WARNING: spoilers below
"Huh, I was hopin' they were gonna screw!" when Keith left Tess alone in the bedroom.

One of the women said, "What a d*ck!" at the water tower scene.

They were viscerally disappointed when it turned out that Long's character was actually a rapist and not the victim of a lying woman.

At the very end one of the women said, "Well that was stupid."


So, you know, quality audiencing.
I mean, how could you not give it a full 5 stars with that experience? Love it.



(MAJOR SPOILERS, PEOPLE!)

Well, the one guy was like
WARNING: spoilers below
"Huh, I was hopin' they were gonna screw!" when Keith left Tess alone in the bedroom.

One of the women said, "What a d*ck!" at the water tower scene.

They were viscerally disappointed when it turned out that Long's character was actually a rapist and not the victim of a lying woman.

At the very end one of the women said, "Well that was stupid."


So, you know, quality audiencing.
This is why I love seeing stuff in cinema, one gets reminded about human nature. That’s just nuts.



This is why I love seeing stuff in cinema, one gets reminded about human nature. That’s just nuts.
Thankfully they were mostly quiet during the film, because they were really noisy during the previews and they'd also clearly been drinking.

Also, out in the parking lot the one man was standing with a child? So maybe they had sent him into a different film?

There was another group in the theater, but they were being, like, fun noisy. I wish I'd been sitting closer to them.



LOL. It was terrifying, just in all the wrong ways.
Theaters need Nicole Kidman to describe this scenario while promoting AMC.