My 2025 Watchlist Frenzy!

I've had a couple of weeks off in order to catch up with the big films of 2024 - primarily so I could vote on every category in The 2024 MoFo Film Awards. I'm back now, and eager to make up for lost time!

__________________

Can't stop thinking about Psycho and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre while watching Deranged - all of these films invariably lead back to a real-life origin (Mr. Ed Gein - that most ghoulish of 20th Century figures) who appears pretty sick, sad and lonely when all is set out "as it really happened" without an artistic interpretation of what he represented. Also, at times, it all feels weirdly comedic when looking through today's lens. Introducing us to the crimes we're about to witness is a narrator who will show up here and there - at times in the same room as Ezra Cobb (Roberts Blossom) while he's committing his crimes. Yes, Ezra Cobb - the film shies from calling our very weird protagonist Ed Gein. For legal reasons? Anyway, the narrator looks so much like Jemaine Clement it adds to the comic feel when the camera pans and we see he's actually part of a ghoulish scene, his serious intonation all the more reason to suppress a giggle. As the film progresses we see him less and less, as if the madness on display has become all too much for the narrator to bear. In the meantime, Blossom seems gleeful once fully unleashed as not only a grave robber and necrophile, but cold-blooded murderer.

If I'm to be unabashedly honest for a minute here - I come first and foremost for the various corpses. Cobb arranges them like dolls, and this is what sets him apart from most - how decorative his brand of horror is. In the credits, I spied Tom Savini in the makeup department and I was delighted overall by the grisly and grotesque horror that fills out this film, whether remains looked mummified, desiccated, lumpy, skeletal or raw - Cobb's house is appropriately off-putting once adorned with mother Amanda (Cosette Lee while alive) and the various other silent friends keeping her company. The screenplay and performances do feel a little hysterical and overplayed - though I'm not forgetting that the kind of person Cobb is (or was) would stand out as slightly ridiculous and somewhat childlike in real life. His transformation into a sex fiend came from nowhere though, after spending so much time learning about how his mother successfully made Ezra Cobb hate and fear sex, and I was left wondering how he'd overcome his mother's admonishments. (He sexually assaults one victim while "mother" is sitting at the same table, marking a mental 180° turn that's absolutely dizzying.)

Look, Deranged has a few of the hallmarks of an exploitation flick, was shot on an exceedingly low budget and pretty much disappeared after it's release - but it's way better than all of that might suggest. In fact, when you take it all into account, it's amazing. It was produced by a concert promoter (Tom Karr) who had a fascination with the crimes of Ed Gein - and that's a clue as to why the project has that genuine, passionate earnestness about it. It also proves why Ed Gein's story was so very rarely directly adapted to the screen in the 20th Century - it's cartoonishly bizarre, and if it weren't so overwhelmingly horrific and sad it'd be a morbid comedy. Something you'd expect from a Lloyd Kaufman. Alfred Hitchcock and Tobe Hooper produced tragic figures and monsters by distilling the essence of darkness from the story, but in Deranged it's put before us naked and in it's raw form. As such it ironically feels less real and strangely silly, but not less worth seeing for a peek behind the curtain into this rare representation of America's first real-life famous ogre, who became a byword for grisly shock and insanity.

Glad to catch this one - an extended murder sequence and a protracted dissection sequence had to be cut for the film to be allowed a release with an R rating.




Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Deranged

I've been meaning to watch this for forever. I mean a really long time. Don't know why I never have. I'll bump it up with this review I think I would react the way you did based on your description.

Point taken - there has been a lot said about Last House on Dead End Street, and I agree with a lot of it. It's surely something that I'll remember, and for something so crude it gave me a lot to think about (as sometimes happens, the review I wrote in my mind last night will be far superior to what comes to me now.) I also can't avoid the basic fact that I really hated this movie, and when it gets down to evoking this distinct unequivocal emotional response it will reflect in what I rate it. Roger Watkins showed me the worst of humanity and human impulses after brooding for a stultifying 50 minutes or so, and did so with the most meagre of resources and talent (from what I hear, he shot this on a $3000 budget - legend tells us that $800 of that went towards the actual production, and the rest towards drugs for the cast and crew) - all that ended up doing was severely irritating and angering me. The making of the snuff films which is this movie's crowning glory were shocking not because of the weak effects, but because of how nasty, mean-spirited, cruel, ugly and horrible the murders were. All throughout, the characters laugh and try to conflate what they're doing with some religious/cult substance/consequence. It's effective horror, but I thought even this much-lauded part of the picture was poorly executed.

The movie starts with main character Terry Hawkins (played by producer and director Roger Watkins), and his narrated thoughts which provide us exposition. He's spent a year in prison for drug dealing, and he's a bitter man. The stag films he used to make never sold all that well, and he's of the opinion that this is because they weren't extreme enough. Terry will spend much of the film seeking out fellow filmmakers who will help him film real murders, and finding victims - the first of whom is a random transient. Later, those selected for the extravaganza of dismemberment, disembowelment, slicing, dicing, drilling and beating end up being pornographic filmmakers, their wives and actresses. At times, before they meet their fate, the porn producers and directors are shown experimenting with bestiality and throwing parties where girls in blackface are whipped - I think in a forlorn attempt to excite a dwindling consumer base who are no longer all that excited with nudity and sex. The public's insatiable appetites proving Terry's point - there's a thirst for violence regarding the moviegoing public, and what better to quench it than no-holds-barred, grisly snuff entertainment?

Underground trailblazing, or cheap and cruddy shock exploitation? Both? Filmed in 1972 and originally screened under the title The Cuckoo Clocks of Hell (at Cannes, if you can believe that), this beauty originally had an eye-watering runtime of 175 minutes. That version is either completely lost or locked in a vault somewhere depending on which source of information you trust, but I'm not all that eager to suffer through three hours of what I endured yesterday. There's nothing particularly pleasant about the film's tone or atmosphere in general, as memorable as the finale ends up being. Those who heard about it in their youth during the 80s and 90s, and struggled to find themselves a copy of an almost mythologically hard-to-find, gruesome snuff horror movie, watched it after dropping acid and ended up with the fifth-generation VHS-degraded disturbing sounds and visuals baked into their brain will probably worship it - but if you simply stream it without being prepared with a backstory, it plays differently. Since watching it I've started to explore all of that, and it's been interesting and educational to digest. Going on the movie alone though - as weird and surreal as it is - my experience was lacking.

Glad to catch this one (no really) - Watkins was inspired to write the screenplay after reading the Charles Manson biography The Family (1971) by Ed Sanders.




Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Last House on Dead End Street

I was going to begin proceedings by describing Stuart : A Life Backwards as very much like a television film - but then I found out that it is a television film, so it figures. Not bad, getting stars like Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hardy for your TV movie, but neither were really huge names at the time - not that you'd know with the confident and expert way they take on their roles here. Hardy especially is deserving of such words as "incredible" and "outstanding" in the plum role of Stuart Clive Shorter - a career criminal who struggles with mental instability, drug addiction and alcoholism. The movie is based on Alexander Masters' (Cumberbatch) book of the same title, and basically tells the story of Stuart's life in reverse - starting with Stuart as he is and then recounting step by step what led to him being the damaged human being he was when Alexander met him. This happened during a campaign to get Ruth Wyner and John Brock (who both managed Wintercomfort for the Homeless - a haven for those living on the streets) released from prison after they were arrested simply because some of the residents were dealing drugs behind their backs at their lodgings for the homeless. Stuart chipped in with help, and as he and Alexander brainstormed ideas for the campaign the two suddenly found themselves becoming unlikely friends.

As you'd probably guess, Stuart is an unusual character. Covered in tattoos, and with a specific penchant for carrying and brandishing knives, you'd hardly expect the quiet "oohs" and "aahs" he emits when noticing a nicely crafted bookcase, a box of connoisseur tea or nice garden. At first I was properly worried that I'd hardly be able to decipher what he's saying - such is his slurred, broken struggle to speak clearly - but I think Hardy cleans it up a little after introducing us to his character properly. He has the aura of a nice fellow who'll treat you well if you treat him well - unless he's in the process of robbing you, or unless he's in the process of going through one of his particularly bad turns. During one especially brave sequence Hardly allows us a solid scene of full frontal nudity - provocative not because of any sexual context, but because of the fact that he's slashed himself bloody, is screaming incoherently and is in the process of going to war with the entire S.W.A.T. team that has arrived to take him down. On top of what frequent heroin use, alcohol consumption, mental abuse and living rough has done to him, he also suffered from facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy - lending the 33-year-old the physical appearance of an old man in the way he walks and gestures.

There are a few shocking reveals as the film and Alexander dig deeper into Stuart's backstory, and it's no spoiler to reveal that Stuart will be dead by the time the film finishes because it begins by dropping that bit of info immediately (without disclosing exactly how he'll die.) I had to laugh during one scene, because I've had a 'frequently jailed person' cook for me before and my experience was so similar it felt like I was reliving the whole ordeal. The movie glides by with Alexander's narration, and occasionally (since he also illustrated his book with drawings) a little bit of animation that delves into what you'd imagine this or that revealed info might look like in cartoon form. No doubt though - Stuart's story is particularly harrowing and confronting in many respects, and you will be faced with both empathising with someone who never had a real chance at a normal life, and also acknowledging that this man has committed some really awful acts of violence and criminal mischief. I don't think it's all in service of feeling sorry for Stuart or condemning him, but simply digesting what his life was like and coming to a series of your own conclusions that wrestle with the complexity of the path he was set on from birth. That, and also a chance to marvel at the talent of Tom Hardy.

Glad to catch this one - Tom Hardy was nominated for a BAFTA for his performance as Stuart Shorter.




Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Stuart : A Life Backwards

Sounds like 2024 was a wild but productive year! Watching 275 films is no small feat, even if the watchlist grew slightly. Love the dedication to keeping your list curated. Sucks about Love According to Dalva, hope you get to revisit it soon. Starting 2025 with Falcon Lake is a strong move—good luck hitting that 400 target!

Have you ever had the wrong idea about a movie based solely on years of idle speculation? I remember seeing Alone in the Dark haunting my local video stores year after year, and I never picked it up and gave it ago. I'd always assumed that it was some low budget slasher, and that it'd end up being second grade material featuring performers I'd never seen and would never see again. I specifically remember the front cover, with a rather generic depiction/illustration featuring a man holding an axe. Crucially, there was no mention that this film features Jack Palance, Martin Landau and Donald Pleasence in leading roles, and that alone would have been enough to stop me in my tracks and make me question my suppositions. Something I was also unaware of was the fact that this film was written and directed by Jack Sholder - someone who was much discussed by me and my friends because of the fact that he made the cult classic horror champ The Hidden, as well as being tapped to helm the underrated Nightmare on Elm Street sequel Freddy's Revenge. Yes - the "gay" Nightmare movie which stands out when you line that franchise up due to it's rule-breaking originality. Somehow, Alone in the Dark was either never brought up or else it was in passing and I never took too much notice. This has been a correction long overdue.

Another surprise for me was the fact that this actually has something to do with being alone in the dark, as the title implies - a power cut disables all the security features at an asylum (I prefer the term "madhouse" when describing the one in this particular film), and a group of highly dangerous lunatics escape - their main purpose to hunt down the doctor they think has murdered the previous psychiatrist who looked after them. Donald Pleasence plays Dr. Leo Bain, head psychiatrist, who has some novel, 'soft-touch' and trusting techniques which allow the patients more freedom. He welcomes Dr. Dan Potter (Dwight Schultz) to his staff, and introduces him to the four most dangerous patients there. Frank Hawkes (Jack Palance) immediately suspects that Dr. Potter has killed the previous doctor, Dr. Henry Merton - and conspires with the rest to kill him. Byron Sutcliff (Martin Landau) is a pyromaniac evangelist with a penchant for knives, Ronald Elster (Erland Van Lidth) is a very large child molester, and the fourth member of the group never reveals his face to us - gee, I wonder why the movie isn't showing us his face? They wouldn't be about to pull a swifty that will make you scratch your head if you really think carefully about it, would they? All of the actors playing crazy people have a lot of fun with their roles, and Donald Pleasence adds to that by playing Dr. Bain as an extreme eccentric.

In the end Alone in the Dark turns into a home invasion horror/thriller with Dr. Potter's family all getting enough character development for us to care what happens to them. All of the extraneous characters are there to simply exist as murder fodder - for example Bunky (Carol Levy) the babysitter, who also invites her boyfriend around which ends up meaning he only ever lived a very short life. Also the poor cop checking on the house who is invited for dinner, and is the first one outside to investigate "suspicious noises" and ends up making a lot of noise himself when an arrow impales him to a tree. It might be fun, but Sholder and producer Robert Shaye, at the head of the new and developing New Line Cinema (this would be the first ever film produced for the production company) really take their job seriously and carefully develop every scene so that tension is built up and maintained as it should be. You can tell they cared about their product, which makes Alone in the Dark a very easy movie to watch and enjoy. I'm sure that if I'd hired it during those heady VHS days in my youth it would have become a firm favourite and I'd have had a memorable time with it. Perhaps, in an alternate universe, that happened. In this one, it took some 40-odd years for me to finally get to it!

Glad to catch this one - Matthew Broderick was auditioned for the role of Bunky's boyfriend, however Jack Sholder thought Broderick was too talented for the small part.




Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Alone in the Dark

Alone in the Dark is a lot of fun.

I was a big fan of Victim when I saw it years back. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts.

I keep forgetting to check out The Green Knight. Given how much I loved A Ghost Story, I have no reason to expect anything less.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

It's quite good. (An acquaintance of mine is the sister of the film's DP, but I had a positive opinion of the film before I learned that! She apparently got to visit the film's set---lucky!)

At a time when homosexuality was still illegal in Britain, collaborators Basil Dearden (directing) and husband and wife team Janet Green and John McCormick (writing) tackled the subject head on in a sympathetic and extremely courageous way with their 1961 film Victim. There's no hinting, suggesting or metaphorical allegory - which is what I thought was amazing about this film. I would never have expected a film from this era to directly deal with this matter, and the longer the movie went the more admiration and respect I had for these filmmakers. The laws which forbade homosexuality were known colloquially as "the blackmailer's charter", because an entire dark industry grew from the money to be made in threatening to reveal a person's sexuality. This is the direction Victim goes in. Dirk Bogarde plays eminent, respected and successful barrister Melville Farr. When a young man he'd once fallen for, Jack Barrett (Peter McEnery) commits suicide after being arrested (he had been stealing money to pay off blackmailers), Farr embarks on a campaign to reveal who these blackmailers are and bring them to justice. He does so with the knowledge that doing so will cost him his career, despite the fact he's on the verge of becoming a Queen's Counsel. This action will also have painful consequences for his marriage to Laura (Sylvia Syms) - a woman he loves, and who knows about and struggles with Melville's sexuality.

Dirk Bogarde is superb in this movie, and moves a step closer to being included in the top tier of actors and actresses I'm a fan of. It's not just because of the sterling bravery he exhibits by taking on this role wholeheartedly - he really embodies the proud character, and allows us to clearly see the multi-dimensional emotional conflict that defines Melville Farr. In a much smaller role, character actor Norman Bird really impresses as Harold Doe, a bookseller who spurns Barrett and goes on to regret doing so, while also blaming Farr for what's happened. The performances help a movie that's a little dour and dry (in a very British way), and the villains, played by Derren Nesbitt, Hilton Edwards and David Evans, are appropriately nasty and easy to hate. The police are probably the least accurately portrayed, some being very sympathetic to Barrett, Farr and homosexuality while in real life they were persecutors and generally a gay person's greatest enemy. Homosexuality was partly decriminalised in 1967, but there were many anti-gay laws still on the books, and police in England enforced those laws even more aggressively. It took until 2003 before England had a criminal code that did not penalize a person for their sexuality.

I can't imagine how some audiences would have perceived this film when released, or how polarizing it must have been when being discussed. There were troubles with the British Board of Film Censors and America's Motion Picture Production Code, which initially denied Victim it's seal of approval. The controversy can't overshadow how good a film this is though - it's very well shot (by veteran cinematographer Otto Heller), on location in many instances, making it lively as well as powerful and humanistic. Overall, a really interesting window through which to view a society where sensible people were ready to start asking questions about prejudice and fairness. There are many instances in it of just how life destroying this was for the people unfortunate enough to live in a society which deemed them abhorrent, and how miscreants took advantage of it. To fight it meant outing yourself, and that often meant losing your job, your friends - and before 1967 even your freedom. The maximum penalty for being convicted of having anal sex in Britain before 1967 was life imprisonment. With that kind of danger, any film that intended to serve a humanistic purpose could also raise almighty stakes - which Victim does. It truly was, and is, a landmark film.

Glad to catch this one - nominated for 2 BAFTA Awards - Best Actor for Dirk Bogarde and Best Screenplay for Janet Green & John McCormick.




Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Victim

Like you say, one of the best things about the film is how upfront it is about everything. It's so direct and matter-of-fact, and also shows a range of gay characters who are distinctly just . . . people.