My 2025 Watchlist Frenzy!

→ in
Tools    





Black Christmas is great. It's the only horror movie that ever actually scared me (as in, I'm just going to pause this for a minute to make sure my windows and doors are locked . . . )



Black Christmas is just about perfect in its simplicity.


Is Halloween better? Probably. But not by much. And we could argue that not only did it lift the simplicity of BCs basic concept, but it also is indebted to how it pays such close attention to the small nuances of each of its characters.



I would say Halloween is the better slasher, but I do love Black Christmas quite a bit. I was less impressed with Viy, but all three are worth watching.



Victim of The Night
It should be noted that I’ve never been a huge fan of Black Christmas. It’s ok, but nothing amazing.
I just meant they are such dissimilar films despite both technically being "Horror".



I just meant they are such dissimilar films despite both technically being "Horror".
He's just comparing them because Viy is what Phoenix is watching next.



Victim of The Night
He's just comparing them because Viy is what Phoenix is watching next.
Oh, duh, somehow I totally missed that.



Victim of The Night
Yes, this. Both are different types of horror, but I prefer Viy of the two.
I'm not sure which one I prefer. Viy is fun, 1967 Soviet Evil Dead. Which I enjoyed quite a bit.
But, while I have in the past felt that Black Christmas wasn't Horrory enough for me, I do think it's a very good movie.
Hmmm... I will contemplate this more.



I forgot the opening line.


VIY (1967)

Directed by : Georgi Kropachyov & Konstantin Ershov

Before I went there, I held in my mind a lot of romantic idealism about Russia - a land of rustic long-bearded, wagon-driving peasants fearful of witches, curses and spells was not what I found, but this movie based on mid-nineteenth-century Russian novelist Nikolai Gogol's story exemplifies it. Khoma Brutus (Leonid Kuravlyov) is a seminary student who ends up bedding down for the night in the wrong place, and before you know it an old witch (Nikolai Kutuzov) is riding him out in the countryside like a horse before the two of them take off flying. In spite of all her powerful magic, this witch isn't above being beaten to death by Khoma - but near death she turns into a beautiful young girl (Natalya Varley), and becomes the bane of Khoma's existence. Summoned from his seminary, Khoma is tasked with praying for the deceased girl he was responsible for killing - three nights alone with a powerful being who wants nothing more than revenge. A terrifying three nights for Khoma, who is threatened with "1000 lashes" if he refuses this task, but promised "1000 pieces of gold" if he carries out the doom-laden assignment of praying over the soul of a wicked, powerful evil-doer who is able to conjur all manner of ghoul and demon - including the much feared Viy. One look into that demon's eyes and Khoma will be finished.

Viy is kind of precious, because you get from it something you won't find anywhere these days. Just take for example the recent 2014 remake which subjugates the folk tale in favour of a convoluted, overarching saga which simply uses it as the basis of a more modern narrative. We rarely see adaptations of old novels the way people would have envisaged them back when they were written - but Viy's charm comes from the way it's steeped in old Russian culture, with all of it's characters very much dressed the part and behaving in a traditional manner. Not only that, but most importantly, we have a malevolent witch who pretty much steers very close to a classical old description of one. Sure, nobody today thinks that there were witches who looked like old hags and flew broomsticks around after concocting potions in a cauldron - but I have no trouble whatsoever in granting this movie it's classical villain, and bring on the fact that by the time the movie finishes we'll get walking skeletons, werewolves, ghosts, zombies, trolls, goblins - well, literally everything bar the kitchen sink, with the great, hulking Viy to top off a horror story with the absolute works. It's a stupendous display which includes many frightful creations. I really didn't expect anything as grand or imaginative.

There's a wonderful atmosphere to this movie as well - it builds throughout, and by the time 5 or so black cats suddenly appear from nowhere in the makeshift morgue and race from stage left to stage right (accompanied by some deft sound design) I nearly jumped right out of my chair. Hats off also to what has to be the scariest depiction of Christ ever painted - I was left wondering as to whether that's actually a very old Russian icon or whether someone created it on purpose. Yes - the production design, set decoration and the like is amazing, and of course Russian filmmakers have the benefit of using the likes of the Eletsky Monastery in Chernihiv to benefit their movie. As atmospheric as it is, there's also a light comedic tone as to our protagonist's plight - something that's often lined up with how much alcohol he manages to drink to stiffen his nerves, shouting that as he has Cossack blood running in his veins he'll never be scared. After all - a story as outlandish and fantastic as this will always be told in a spirit of fun and merriment. Great stuff. This is the very definition of a classic. What I saw was a cultural treasure that is a whole heap of fun to watch - and a must-see for any fan of world cinema.

Glad to catch this one - it's in Steven Jay Schneider's 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. Mario Bava's Black Sunday is based on the same Nikolai Gogol short story.





Watchlist Count : 454 (+2)

Next : Empire of Passion (1978)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Viy
__________________
Remember - everything has an ending except hope, and sausages - they have two.

Latest Review : Before the Rain (1994)



I forgot the opening line.
I was so sure Black Christmas had the win sewn up in the "Viy Vs Black Christmas" stakes, but now I'm not so sure. They're both tremendously good, and so different from each other it's hard to compare them.



Nice review! I was less impressed by the film as I felt the atmospheric moments were rather few and far in between and it wasn't until the final sequence where I was fully blown away, but its big moments certainly leave a lasting impact.



I wasn't as hot on Viy, but I did like it and thought the whole look and special effects were quite impressive for the time.
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!





DOWN BY LAW (1986)

Directed by : Jim Jarmusch

I was declaring Jim Jarmusch one of my favourite filmmakers after having seen only one of his movies - 2005 Cannes Grand Prix winner Broken Flowers, which featured the inestimable talent of Bill Murray. That seems a lifetime ago, but in the interim, out of all six Jarmusch films I'd seen up to this point, I'd never seen anything he made previous to Dead Man (1995). Although this film, Down By Law, was made early in his career (his third feature), Jarmusch had progressed so far already that he seems to have mastery over all he needed to have to create his special brand of hip, music and poetry-driven quasi-noir brand of movie. It's like an art film that absolutely anyone could latch onto and enjoy, taking place in an astoundingly well-shot (the great Robby Müller served as cinematographer) New Orleans and Louisiana bayou, while featuring three characters thrust together by circumstance when put into the same jail cell. Zack (Tom Waits) is a DJ by profession and petty criminal on the side, hitting a low point in his life after leaving another job and seeing another girlfriend leave him. Jack (John Lurie) is a pimp who has been set up with an unseen underage girl. Roberto (Roberto Benigni) is an eccentric Italian card shark who has accidentally killed a man in self defence once caught in his cheating ways. These three will form the unlikeliest of bonds on an adventure which could prove a fresh start considering the dismal hole all three are in.

This is the kind of film that really feels ad-libbed, and while I don't know at all if this was the case, I'd venture that it was in many instances. There's a naturalism to the dialogue that simply doesn't feel like it's been written, and a genuine 'in-the-moment' freshness to each funny moment that seems too spontaneous to be anything other than improvisation. I loved it - it's genuinely funny when it needs to be, especially via the surprisingly funny Benigni, who I don't usually like. I have to admit, he's pretty hilarious in this which perhaps illustrates that he was ill-served by many of the movie projects he ended up being involved in. In the meantime Tom Waits had developed into a bona-fide full-fledged actor by this stage in his career. While I've seen a few of the movies John Lurie has appeared in (Paris, Texas, The Last Temptation of Christ, Get Shorty etc) I don't remember him in them, and he's the odd one out as far as being a performer I really know. He acquits himself well enough here, but it's Benigni that steals every scene he's in, and Waits that impresses the most. In the meantime the whole feature is a black and white visual feast, the beauty of this often contrasting with the more rugged, base and low-rent roughness of the characters themselves. At times though, there are long, still takes in which the interaction between these three takes center stage above and beyond anything else.

These days, this is my kind of movie. It's independent American cinema that is nonetheless technically brilliant and driven by a filmmaker who is pretty much well known without making many movies that you could call part of the mainstream - but that all means nothing if the movie itself isn't thoroughly enjoyable to watch and easy to appreciate. I guess I gathered very early on that Jarmusch made the kind of cinema that resonates with me (although I do dislike one of his films - The Limits of Control), and it's only a shame that he's not more prolific. When you watch Down By Law you're really struck by how much value these characters get from being forced into an uncomfortable proximity with each other - people they'd normally spit on if passing them on the street. Underneath the hostility and guarded aloofness there's a spiritual camaraderie waiting to be born that's of invaluable worth, and that's what really forms the core of the whole movie. It's something that's so transformative it's as beautiful as nature itself, which we see a lot of, and I don't think it's any accident that we start the film on dank city streets and end in the pristine wilderness. That's the kind of journey we take with Down By Law - another very excellent feature from the great Jim Jarmusch.

Glad to catch this one - Criterion #166 and in Steven Jay Schneider's 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. Nominated for then Palme d'Or at Cannes in 1986.





Watchlist Count : 452 (+/- 0)

Next : A Brighter Summer Day (1991)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Down By Law
I adore this film. It was my first Jarmusch film, someone recommended it to me a couple of years ago, and I was thoroughly impressed by it.



I was so sure Black Christmas had the win sewn up in the "Viy Vs Black Christmas" stakes, but now I'm not so sure. They're both tremendously good, and so different from each other it's hard to compare them.
I prefer Black Christmas, but nothing wrong with just saying that they are two great films.



I forgot the opening line.


EMPIRE OF PASSION (1978)

Directed by : Nagisa Ōshima

Figuratively speaking, there are of course such things as hauntings and ghosts - a murderer may very well never cease seeing their murder victim around every corner, and their actions haunt their dreams and every waking hour. In Nagisa Ōshima's Empire of Passion, there's a very literal ghost haunting Toyoji (Tatsuya Fuji) and Seki (Kazuko Yoshiyuki) - that of Gisaburo (Takahiro Tamura), Seki's husband, who she and Toyoji killed when they became lovers and wanted to see the end of him. The ghost of Gisaburo doesn't howl for vengeance and cry out in pain - in fact, it doesn't seem like it knows Gisaburo is dead, and continues trying to ply his trade as a rickshaw driver while hopefully holding out for some tea or liquor. It's the ghost's very everpresent companionship that drives a guilt-driven Seki and fearful Toyoji around the bend, and their changed behaviour in turn attracts the suspicion of the people in their village, and also brings Inspector Hotta (Takuzo Kawatani) investigating. Why is it that Toyoji continually rakes up autumn leaves only to throw them down one specific well? One terrible irony - because of all the suspicion, Seki and Toyoji mustn't spend too much time together - but when they do their passion reflects all of the angst and terrible dread which consumes them both.

Very purposefully straightforward, this one - although it's presented to us via some very fetching cinematography from Yoshio Miyajima, who was notably director of photography on such classics as Harakiri, The Human Condition trilogy, and Kwaidan. I didn't find it to be a spooky or scary movie, and I don't think it was really meant to be - we're more focused on the psychological state of our two guilty murderers and how they handle living with the constant threat of being found out and the guilt of what they've done. Ōshima is particularly interested in how their sexuality and zealous, passionate attraction to each other both paves the way for what they do, and how it evolves in tandem with their crime. I may not have been creeped out by ghosts in this movie, but I sure did feel a little creeped out by sex scenes where the driving force is more grief and terror-oriented than love and pleasure centered. Sometimes our two hateful protagonists are smeared with ash or muck, which manages to debase them even further - making this an uncomfortable, inexorable slide into horror territory. It reminds me of some true crime stories that shock because the presence of lovemaking seems so inappropriate in a horror context, but at the same time is what spurs the horror on.

There's a fine line between pleasure and pain - I remember looking at a teacher like a confused dog once when she explained to me that "excitement" doesn't necessarily connote something good. The same goes for passion, in the same sense - something which can be expressed in various dreadful ways, which comes about in Empire of Passion. Nagisa Ōshima finds many ways to visually express how destructive this can be, and does blur the lines between pleasure and pain, love and hate - being stirred to do wrong. Out of all of his other films, I've only ever seen Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence - and I kind of feel that puts me at a disadvantage. I'd definitely love to see In the Realm of the Senses at the very least. But as far as appreciating this as a film goes - it's extremely well made and well shot. Kazuko Yoshiyuki has to work so hard - her role is extremely punishing and she bears that burden with performative effortlessness. I found the story exceptionally compelling - and I'm afraid to say it was because I wanted to see these two horrible people suffer what they deserved to. If ghosts aren't real, they ought to be - but never underestimate people's ability to be haunted by what they've done after being ruled by their passions. This surely wasn't your average "kaidan" (Japanese ghost/supernatural) film, but a psychologically intense experience that grabbed my attention.

Glad to catch this one - Criterion #467. Nagisa Ōshima won Best Director at Cannes at the 1978 festival, where it was nominated for the Palme d'Or.





Watchlist Count : 454 (+2)

Next : Evil Dead Trap (1988)

Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Empire of Passion