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

Tools    





Horror Express -


An apparently invincible monster who can change form is let loose in a confined space located in a freezing environment. Is this The Thing? Whether it really is an adaptation of Who Goes There? or not, the important thing is it offers a fun and frightening time. That confined space is the Trans-Siberian Express, which is barreling through Russia transporting everyone from professors played by horror icons Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee - Lee's being guilty of bringing the villain aboard - a scientist, Polish royalty and a doomsaying monk, each of whom are fair game.

The best horror villains tend to be the best designed ones; in other words, it's clear what they can and can't do. This one is averse to light, can only kill in the dark and can steal the knowledge and form of its victims, which are rules the movie does a good job of setting down. As always, having Lee and Cushing along for the ride makes everything better - I especially like how fey and smug Cushing's professor is - but the MVP is de Mendoza's Rasputin-adjacent scenery-chewing monk. He and the professors' debates as to whether or not the monster is a spawn of Satan also make for quality character building. Also, if gore and nightmare fuel are what you crave from horror, you're bound to love what the monster does to its victims.

Is this movie on par with the two Things? Not quite. It's rough around the edges and not always in a good way, especially in terms of editing. Each cutaway to the exterior of the train to denote the passage of time is jarring, for instance. I also wish the train seemed more claustrophobic. For the ways it proves that the scariest monsters are not only well conceived, but also unstoppable, and that a train is an underappreciated setting for movies like this one, redundant is not a word I would use to describe the experience of watching this. Oh, and speaking of scenery chewing, there's a cameo from a welcome sight in the third act.



Victim of The Night
Horror Express -


An apparently invincible monster who can change form is let loose in a confined space located in a freezing environment. Is this The Thing? Whether it really is an adaptation of Who Goes There? or not, the important thing is it offers a fun and frightening time. That confined space is the Trans-Siberian Express, which is barreling through Russia transporting everyone from professors played by horror icons Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee - Lee's being guilty of bringing the villain aboard - a scientist, Polish royalty and a doomsaying monk, each of whom are fair game.

The best horror villains tend to be the best designed ones; in other words, it's clear what they can and can't do. This one is averse to light, can only kill in the dark and can steal the knowledge and form of its victims, which are rules the movie does a good job of setting down. As always, having Lee and Cushing along for the ride makes everything better - I especially like how fey and smug Cushing's professor is - but the MVP is de Mendoza's Rasputin-adjacent scenery-chewing monk. He and the professors' debates as to whether or not the monster is a spawn of Satan also make for quality character building. Also, if gore and nightmare fuel are what you crave from horror, you're bound to love what the monster does to its victims.

Is this movie on par with the two Things? Not quite. It's rough around the edges and not always in a good way, especially in terms of editing. Each cutaway to the exterior of the train to denote the passage of time is jarring, for instance. I also wish the train seemed more claustrophobic. For the ways it proves that the scariest monsters are not only well conceived, but also unstoppable, and that a train is an underappreciated setting for movies like this one, redundant is not a word I would use to describe the experience of watching this. Oh, and speaking of scenery chewing, there's a cameo from a welcome sight in the third act.
I was unable to connect with this one on first viewing (to the tune of not actually finishing it) but I've been meaning to go back and catch it. It is still in my queue...



I finally got around to seeing M3gan. It's more like Bad Par3nt1ng: Th3 M0v13, amirite?

I liked the animatronics that made the doll come to life, I liked some of the humor that director Gerald Johnstone (Housebound) threw into it and there were some solid thrills in its last half hour.

BUT

The script lacked the surprise factor that Housebound had, I got the impression that it didn't want to be a horror film for a while, and what the film has to say about AI isn't going to be earthshaking.

I give this a marginal recommendation and a B-.

I'm gonna see if I get through The Pope's Exorcist by this weekend. Russell Crowe's accent is not good, but I'm liking the portrayal?



what the film has to say about AI isn't going to be earthshaking.
I don't know that anything really new has really been said on the topic since Capek's R.U.R. (1920).



The film is good, I think.


It shows a plausible next step in tech. We're going to move from chatbots to companion agents (see Replika). We will develop relationships with them. It will be uncanny (is it word salad or is it intelligence or is intelligence merely a complicated word salad?).



It is funny. The adverts are biting and satirical a la Robocop. The doll gets some amusing lines.



It is occasionally moving. When the doll saves the day at the tech demo, it's pretty good dialogue.



I was unable to connect with this one on first viewing (to the tune of not actually finishing it) but I've been meaning to go back and catch it. It is still in my queue...
It is streaming on Kanopy, a free sevice that only requires a library card, for the foreseeable future.
Horror Express is amazing. Another film that deserves classic status that can't seem to ever get there.
I did enjoy it and recommend it. My categorizing brain can't help but rate it in relation to the similar Thing movies, both of which I enjoyed a bit more.



Victim of The Night

Well, we went to The Broad Theater to see a double-feature of Candyman ('92) followed by The Texas Chainsaw Massacre ('74). We got a glass of wine and some popcorn and were sitting through some oddly contemporary trailers when the movie began and something was... off.
So I went to inform the manager that they were accidentally showing us the '21 Candyman. He was actually really upset about it and tried to fix the situation but apparently his distributor had sent him this by mistake and he had no recourse. He offered to show this of r free and refund everyone's money whether we stayed or not. We stayed. And actually, we let him keep the money because, hey, we paid to see Candyman and, technically, we saw Candyman. He tried.
Anyway, we thought this was pretty good. Not great, not about to challenge the OG, but pretty good.
In this one it is modern day and an up and coming artist living a comfortable life in a gentrified former-ghetto of Chicago with his wealthy girlfriend. While out looking for inspiration for his next phase of work, he comes across the story of Helen (Virginia Madsen from the first Candyman) and the legend of the Candyman and becomes intensely inspired. He seeks deeper knowledge from a neighborhood small-business owner who lived through it and, of course he says it five times in a reflection. From there things begin to go badly.
It's a well-directed film, it flows, maintains tension, etc. The acting is good, especially Yahya Abdul Mateen who is excellent in the lead. I really liked the ending, the very ending.
That said, for some reason, I didn't find it scary much. And the script adds some interesting ideas to the lore but also adds some kinda dumb ones. And it's so heavy on expository dialogue that sometimes it seems like it's just a few lines of jib-jab and then a ton of exposition, over and over again.
Definitely worth seeing and a lot to like but enough drawbacks that I'd like to have seen this script sort of spruced up a bit to make this something I'd like to come back to.



I did enjoy it and recommend it. My categorizing brain can't help but rate it in relation to the similar Thing movies, both of which I enjoyed a bit more.

I've never been a super huge fan of the original Thing, but John Carpenter's definitely crushes this one. But it crushes pretty much everything.



Agreed on both Death Spa and Gothic.
Jeez, sorry, Ida warned you about Warlock. Not that I knew you were gonna watch it but I, for some reason, thought you had seen it before and kinda championed it and I thought you were crazy for it but politely didn't say anything. I guess that wasn't you.
Honestly, I'd really enjoyed the bits and pieces I've seen over the years. But as a whole thing . . . not what I wanted.

I. Love. Death. Spa.
Correct!

May. I’ve heard about this but never got around to it until now. What a weird, funny, sad movie.
Also correct!



Horror Express is amazing. Another film that deserves classic status that can't seem to ever get there.

It's so fun! It does so much with such a modest scope.



Wishmaster is super fun. It's corny and self aware and the writers clearly had fun with the genie concept. Loved it.


Aliens, 2nd watch I think


Besides all the stuff about the xenomorph and all, I really enjoyed how good-spirited this movie is. The company man can obviously suck a walrus, but all the people there are really what makes this movie a joy. Top shelf banter all the way through.


The Boy, 2016 is kinda bad. It's a very silly concept that doesn't mesh with how seriously the movie takes itself. The ending stuff with the boyfriend is just so heavy for a doll babysitting flick.



The Boy, 2016 is kinda bad. It's a very silly concept that doesn't mesh with how seriously the movie takes itself. The ending stuff with the boyfriend is just so heavy for a doll babysitting flick.
I like it as sort of a guilty pleasure. I think that it does a great job with the central mystery of what is really happening in the house.