October Horror Movie Challenge: 31 in 31.

October 25th




The First Deadly Sin (1980) hey kids did you know Frank Sinatra's last film was an 80's slasher film that was supposed to be done by Roman Polanski. This is a very different slasher and I needed the break into watching something more adult. A killer stalks random strangers in New York and murders them with an Ax. The film doesn't engage in the typical extras of other slashers, the film is very much striped to the basics of the genre. It's also more of a detective story than anything else...so it's realistic.


I do wonder how much better Polanski's version would have been because while the film has a number of horror elements to it, it never plays it scary. I would love for this film to get a remake.

After V comes VI

__________________

#25 Street Trash (1987)

Today was a sad movie day as I ended up watching two films and I hated them both. Street Trash is (or tries to be) a comedy but vast majority of its jokes just aren't funny. It doesn't have proper story and its characters are comedic reliefs without personality. It's monotonous and repetitive. Only redeeming qualities it has are decent special effects and the fact that Bronson feels intimidating in couple of scenes. Otherwise it's just as the name implies, trash.

#26 February (2015)
aka The Blackcoat's Daughter / The Daughter of Evil

Movies rarely live up to high expectations and disappointment seems to be the norm. Fortunately every now and then a film with zero expectations ends up being a great one too. February is one of those.

February (or as it's called here, The Daughter of Evil) is on that library streaming service I discovered earlier this month. Main reason it ended up on my watchlist is Kiernan Shipka who I find really cute. I've almost watched this couple of times already but always ended up with something else because I pretty much assumed it was a stinker.

The premise of February is quite simple. Couple of girls stay at the boarding school while others leave for winter break. What follows is told in non-linear fashion and from multiple points of view. I don't often like too much obfuscation when telling simple stories but sometimes it just works. What little story there is unfolds slowly and elegantly.

February is visually beautiful film. It's not flashy like Argento but builds somber and lonely mood with its pale snowy white and deep shadowy black. Soundtrack is typical modern horror with its noises and wailing sounds but it's a perfect fit. For a debut director this is extremely solid piece of work in every way.

And Kiernan Shipka. She's really good (looking) in her role as young Kat whose parents don't show up to get her home for the winter break. Other actors are fine as well but Shipka really stands out.

An easy recommendation for fans of slow and atmospheric horrors. Hail Satan!

Goddard, 2012





Both clever and funny, this deconstruction of the genre genre is always a fun watch. I found that the comedy still seems fresh, and the whip-smart commentary is as biting as ever. I know this is a Goddard flick, but it clearly has Wheddon's hands all over it.



2016, Wingard





I think we watched this last year, too. My wife likes this more than I do, so that is probably how it ended up on our display again. I will admit that Adam Wingard does generate a few tense sequences, and the connection to the lore of the first film is done well enough, but all the cheap jump scares in the first half of the film are annoying. I understand that it's sort of wink-wink-nudge-nudge, and a main character even says "People need to stop doing that!" after one of the scares, but they are just plain dumb. The final few minutes are good, and the lead actress really dials her performance up to 11; her panicked breathing and shaking are definitely convincing. Still, this whole affair was kind of unnecessary.

__________________

Original review found here. Needless to say, I still concur with this and it also stands a chance of being another one of my annual October re-watches.




The staff at a summer camp are stalked and murdered by a mysterious adversary.

My grand unifying theory of horror movies is that their merit can be determined by how they hold up after the initial sense of scariness has worn off. Nowhere is this more true than with slashers, a sub-genre of horror that's more given over to providing immediate thrills than anything else. To this end, I don't consider Friday the 13th an especially good movie or even that good a franchise - having seen every sequel plus Freddy vs. Jason and the remake, I would still consider the original the best, and even then I still mainly think it's okay. Third time through, the jumps are all but gone and even the bloody kill work by the one and only Tom Savini merely proves decent (especially when so many of the kills are done off-screen or with minimal gore). A good point in this film's favour is that it does build a solid atmosphere as Crystal Lake is shot so idyllically (in sharp contrast to Texas Chain Saw Massacre's dried-out farmland or Halloween's milquetoast suburbia) - the lake is so cool and reflective while the dark and stormy night is shot nicely as well (especially while utilising Black Christmas-esque POV camerawork). Still a shame that it's kind of void of substance even by slasher standards - hard not to have Renegade Cut's recently-released "Ronald Reagan: American Slasher" video at the back of my mind as I realise just how absolutely lacking in depth any of these characters are as they engage in just enough immoral shenanigans to merit "punishment" in the eyes of the antagonist. While I don't necessarily think this film by itself wants us to side with the antagonist, it does go back to my initial question of whether or not this film holds up beyond its initial scares - I guess it depends on how much you like looking at pristine campgrounds.




Twenty-eight days after a viral infection turns the population of England into mindless killers, a small group of survivors try to make their way to safety.

I gave this a in a review a few years back but now I look at that review and don't find it particularly well-written or anything. What changed, though? Maybe learning not to give as much of a damn about "plot holes" certainly helped (though it's not hard to notice certain dramatic contrivances, especially concerning how easy/hard it is for characters to get infected by stray blood to the point where it seems like the film kind of forgets about it at times) but now, on my third viewing, I think I actually like this movie. The distinct look of early-2000s digital video (complete with the kind of Dutch-angled cinematography that Boyle has long since run into the ground but at least serves a purpose here) has actually aged rather well and does lend both a requisite urgency to the proceedings and a hyperrealistic edge to the visuals (I kind of have to wonder if watching it in such close proximity to Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead also helps this to really look like a fast-zombie movie done right). I find myself more willing to forgive its slower stretches now as the character work being put in becomes much more evident - I do grant the same lenience to something like the original Dawn of the Dead, anyway. As such, it's not about to become a major favourite just yet or anything but now I feel that I finally get the appeal rather than just shrugging it off as someone thinking they can redefine the zombie movie simply by speeding things up and not using the Z-word.

Also got to respect its needledrops, I mean is any film ever going to make better use of Godspeed You! Black Emperor?

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

#27 I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House (2016)

Decided to watch this one solely because it's a sophomore film by Oz Perkins whose debut February I praised earlier today. While it isn't nearly as good as his debut it still has lots to like and certainly maintains my interest on future films by Perkins.

Just like February this one is slow and atmospheric horror. There's almost no story at all and the focus is on mood and feelings, it's like a cinematic (Gothic) poem. What little plot there is is very predictable and mostly spoiled from the beginning. Still it manages to build suspense and it is at times quite creepy.

There's lots of narration which adds to film's literary feel. They're often accompanied by images that look more like moving photograph or painting than real movie. I'm still a bit undecided how well some of these artistic choices actually work but at least it's a bold stylistic approach for horror film.

Quite experimental Gothic horror that's all style and no substance. Lots of good but in the end it feels like it's missing something.

#28 Paganini Horror (1989)

Crappy Argento clone that thinks few colored lights is enough to make the film visually impressive. Script is laughably bad and acting holds up to same standards. So much worse than the director's earlier scifi horror Contamination. Only values this one has are couple of semi-decent rock songs and few unintentional laughs.

#29 Dark Was the Night (2014)

Quite typical monster feature that has its roots in native American legends. It tries to fool the viewers that it has characters but in reality there's nothing under their loss and guilt (still Durand does pretty decent work as the troubled sheriff). There's not much suspense and the story mostly recycles the usual tropes of the genre. Also the monster looks cheap and ugly (not in positive way). And this review uses colors as elegantly as Dark Was the Night uses color filters.

October 26th



The Believers (1987)


Academy Award winning director John Schlesinger attempted to make a slasher film in 1987. It's basically the story of ritualistic child murders and the story moves on from that. II found the film to be digestible and it had some good parts but it really failed to come together as a slasher film. It sort of jumps around into different genres and none of them are really satisfying.

Miner, 1982





Rating this one in accordance with how much I enjoy it, and not really the technical merits of the film, nor the quality of either the acting or the screenplay. All that stuff is pretty much ****. A lot of nostalgia for me with this one, so that is a big part of my enjoyment. This is also the one where Jason gets the iconic mask, the final girl looks like the early 80s version of Brie Larson, and the rest of the cast has perhaps the lowest combined IQ when considering each cast from each film. I did see this in theaters in 3D, after my friend and I spent the day harassing his older sister to take us to the film, as we were too young to get in at the time.

In the aftermath of a viral infection that turned the population of England into mindless killers, a father is reunited with his estranged children.

Much like the original, I definitely underrated this back in the day as what I initially assumed to be plot hole nonsense is now much more readily apparent as a deliberate depiction of both incompetence and callousness on the part of the military characters (which is definitely in keeping with the first film's dim view of its own military characters, though you do get a few sympathetic ones thrown into the mix this time around as a means of balancing out the critical - some might even say politically-charged - approach to military occupation that this film takes). Still don't think the decision to centre proceedings around a pair of children is an ideal one no matter how much potential dead meat you surround them with, though it's not like the increase in scale doesn't yield its fair share of worthwhile moments (the opening sequence, firebombing, helicopter blades, night vision, etc.) Attempts are made to do right by the chaotic cinematography and breakneck editing of its predecessor and even try to innovate in that regard (e.g. cameras being mounted on infected characters' shoulders), though even that has its limits. As such, I am not entirely convinced that 28 Weeks Later manages to be a legitimately good movie but it does enough right that I can't exactly hate it either. Kind of a shame we haven't gotten 28 Months Later or anything like that as there is still quite a bit of potential that is left to be explored here.




A group of teenagers are terrorised by a malevolent figure who appears in their dreams and attempts to kill them.

Out of all the major slasher properties, A Nightmare On Elm Street might be the one that confounds me the most. On the one hand, it's got the most novel variation on the core concept in that its killer operates within his victim's dreams and is limited only by the depth and depravity of his own imagination when it comes to tormenting his prey. Certainly a necessary shift to mix it up against stab-happy mimes like Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees - but somehow that never truly translated into a horror classic for me. I suspect that if you don't find this scary the first time you watch it then you never will and unfortunately I think that's the case with me after at least three viewings now. Still, at least I've accepted that and can see if I can apply my big horror theory as to whether or not it's still worth watching anyway. A lot of the appeal does come down to how visually inventive the film is when it comes to depicting the murders and menace of "Fred" Krueger (you ever notice how he only starts getting called Freddie as a means of undermining his power and that's what he continues to get called both inside and outside the rest of the franchise?). It arguably helps that I've seen a few of the follow-ups now (Dream Warriors and Freddy's Dead certainly have their moments) that I'm willing to regard the original a little better and may well end up running the whole series at some point like I did with Halloween and Friday the 13th. If nothing else, it will be interesting to see if that's what it takes for me to really appreciate the quality of the original.

October 27th




Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2(1986) I hated this movie, stupid comedy, annoying characters. terrible pacing. Some people seem to like this film I don't get it, the film reminded me of Nothing but Trouble another movie with this huge budget but Nothing but Trouble managed some scares this one just felt..stupid profoundly stupid.

#30 Late Phases (2014)

This is like Bubba Ho-Tep with werewolves and little more serious attitude. Unfortunately it isn't any better though. I don't like how the story works out, the blind protagonist doesn't fit, werewolves are ugly (again not in a positive way) and (just like the previous film) there's totally overdone color filter that makes the film look awful (in Dark Was the Night people looked like smurfs while here everyone has jaundice). I have no idea why so many IMDb reviews are so positive.

Seems I made my 31 one day early.

#31 No One Lives (2012)

One of these "you picked a wrong guy to mess with" films but in usual Kitamura over-the-top way. The twist early on is well telegraphed but I guess it comes with the premise. Film is kinda 3/4 slasher 1/4 action. It's pretty good up to a point but towards the end the "protagonist" becomes too much like a usual slasher villain. I wish it had been little more down to earth and more twisted and perverse. And the ending is quite stupid.

Harlin, 1988





The fact that I was just sitting here deciding whether or not I liked this more than Dream Warriors sort of says to me that this series tends to be a cut above the rest in quality. Like Dream Warriors, this flick has its issues, not the least of which is the abysmal acting chops of the young lady pictured above, Tuesday Knight (?!?!) is almost as bad as Lar Park Lincoln of Friday the 13th Part VII fame. Not quite, but almost. Also, some poor sap involved in making this film tried to inject some actual cinematic sequences into this thing. The theater scene in particular stood out as being pretty damned creative and atmospheric. Of course, most of the film is not done this well, so these sequences seem almost out of place.

The Dream Master gimmick itself is pretty cool, even if poor Alice mostly just ends up getting her friends killed. Her acting is a bit better than Ms Knight's, but that's not much of an achievement. Englund is good as Freddie, as usual, and still seems to be having fun with the role. I dunno, I like this one, and it's my wife's favorite after the first one.

After marrying into the family of a boardgame tycoon, a young woman must fight for her life when the family subjects her to a deadly game of hide-and-seek.

Ah, the "most dangerous game" premise. Perhaps one of my favourite stock-standard setups for a movie with its readily-defined stakes and conflict, to say nothing of the sheer variety of tones and approaches that can be utilised in the course of pulling it off. Ready or Not is definitely a worthy contribution to this particular sub-genre that knows how to develop both predator and prey in this scenario. It notably swaps out the familiar motivation of unambiguously evil rich people hunting the poor for sport in favour of having the family follow the whims of a mysterious puzzle box with varying degrees of reluctance, allowing the film to play around with its dysfunctional ensemble and their comparative levels of competence when it comes to hunting down the frightened but determined heroine. One can definitely question if it makes any salient jabs at the nature of class warfare beyond its basic tale of a rich family trying to literally kill a poor person just to maintain its standing - there's an extra level of abstraction to the antagonists' motivation that even seems like it's letting them off the hook a bit, though the film is still very much invested in seeing them blunder and suffer. Ready or Not keeps things nice and tight, knowing how to leverage creeping tension without undermining the funhouse vibe it's primarily going for while also being able to throw up new obstacles at a regular pace and being one of the more straight-up fun movies I've seen for this challenge.

October 27th






Night Visitor (1989) - look at that cover..figure you are going to get some awesome satan slashing hookers with great FX and....


yeah this was just a cheap Fright Night ripoff, a boys history teacher is the killer and nobody believes him. Also Elliott Gould is in this in the Roddy McDowell role of hero/coward and it's just not good.

October 28th




Psycho II (1983) is one of the best slasher sequels of all time. Released 23 years after the original Norman has been released. He returns home to put his life back together. The film does a number of things most slashers don't do, to start off with it really invests it's time and energy into a mystery. Anthony Perkins is given an opportunity to act (as a man with a difficult grasp on sanity) and I felt like he did a phenomenal job. The film also uses cinematography and an actual score which completely elevates it. Meg Tilly is also very good as the lead female in that she feels natural in the role, it's no surprise she ended up with Oscar nomination two years later.

October 29th




The Mutilator (1985) this was bit more like a TCM style film where a group of college kids play around in an abandoned beach house. The kids are killed one by one, we don't get a mask or a decent mystery but we do get a pretty creepy looking guy and a decent enough plot.