2022 Halloween Challenge

My final watch for today was The House by the Cemetary (Lucio Fulci, 1981)



Being a huge fan of City of the Living Dead and The New York Ripper, as well of enjoying the other things I've seen by him like Zombi 2 and The Beyond, I couldn't wait to see this. I watched Blue Underground's release which had great picture and sound (I chose the italian mono). As expcted, the directing here is very strong, although I was a bit let down by the story which is not as original as his other films. Also, while the characters are likeable, they simply act overly stupid causing me not to care that much as they meet their fate. Another thing I felt was a bit of an anti-climax:


My least favourite Fulci, it's still good and suspenseful with strong directing. Parts of the directing reminded me of stuff I've seen in Argento's Deep Red and Tenebrae, although I consider those better than this. The screenplay isn't really all that interesting. If you haven't seen many Fulci movies and would like to see a haunted house flick I would probably recommend you start with The Beyond and if you're a fan of that then watch this one.

Good question, this confuses me too.

Tombs of the Blind Dead, 1972

Virginia (María Elena Arpón) is on vacation with her boyfriend, Roger (César Burner), when she reconnects with an old friend and former lover, Betty (Lone Fleming). But the dynamic between the three soon becomes awkward and Virginia jumps off of the train they're on to camp out in an abandoned ruin of a town. Unfortunately for Virginia, the town is home to the undead corpses of a group of human sacrificing mummy vampires who soon set upon her. Later, Roger and Betty try to find out what has happened to Virginia.

Unlike many of the horror movies I've watched in the last two weeks, this is a title that is very familiar to me. Images from the film are very common in "guess that screenshot" games, and with a whole slew of sequels floating around, I've known the title for ages.

And, yeah, it's alright. It does some things very well and some things in a very frustrating way, but ultimately I ended up enjoying it because of the compelling, dark arc of Betty's character.

Fleming is very sympathetic as Betty, and good gracious does the movie put her through the ringer. She's menaced, chased, criticized, terrorized, and simply cannot catch a break. While I took issue with one portion of this (which I'll address later), everything that Betty goes through makes you root for her to survive even more.

There are some strong visuals at times. My favorite shots were those of the knights riding their horses in slow motion towards their victims. It somehow manages to convey both slow and fast movement, and it's an eerie juxtaposition. There's also just something about the way these scenes are shot over the landscapes, in spooky dawn light. Then there were some fun shots here and there, like the disorienting movement of an eye before you realize that it's a fake eye that someone is putting in a mannequin's head. When it comes to the horror aspect, I also found the silence of the knights effectively spooky.

I had two complaints with this film. The first is the staging of several of the scenes with the knights. The knights (when not on horseback), are slow shuffling creatures. I mean, really slow. And while this is scary in its own way, it does lend an air of silliness to some of the sequences. When Virginia is attacked by the knights, she runs behind a door and waits in fear. When this doesn't work, she runs and closes another door and waits in fear. When that doesn't work she . . . runs and closes another door and waits in fear. It's absolutely frustrating to watch, though it pales in comparison to a scene late in the film where a man tries to help a woman. The absolute ridiculous machinations that the actors have to go through so that the man can't move the woman 10 feet is just annoying to watch. Surely there could have been another way to make it convincing. Instead the actress flops around like a fish while the guy helping her sort of halfheartedly tugs at her arm.

I also didn't care for the exploitative nature of several of the sequences. Virginia and Betty are former lovers, something that seems to be in the plot only so that the movie can include a softcore lesbian sex scene. Every female character manages to appear nude or partially nude multiple times, including superfluous sequences of Virginia taking her clothes off to let them dry. (Miraculously, all of the male characters keep their clothing on the whole time, even when attacked by creatures who seemingly love ripping shirts off, go figure). But where this really crossed the line for me was in a sequence of sexual assault. At that point, it felt crass and yucky. And, weirdly, this assault is simply never mentioned again. You can easily see how it could have had an impact on the plot but, like the lesbian flashback, it seems in the movie just to be there.

Overall my reaction was positive, but I wish it had leaned more into its atmospheric and visual strengths and left some of the exploitation stuff on the cutting room floor.

This sounds about right, you're probably even a little more generous than I am with it. I think it has some fantastic scenes but the rest is probably the worst I've seen from Fulci and I agree that the "story" was poor and really just seems like he needed to fill a lot of time between his set-pieces (which is probably true of some of his other films but they work and this one doesn't really). I actually did like though, I wish more of the movie involved that.

I would share with you what I have said about The Blind Dead in the past:

"If you've seen any Blind Dead movies you know what they are. 30-40 minutes of people talking and traveling to put themselves in the exact place where the Blind Dead are. Then the Blind Dead wake up and stalk the people really, really slowly - and totally ****ing blind - and ultimately pretty much just overwhelm their victims with sheer numbers. While it may not seem to viewers like it would be that hard to escape these extremely slow-moving, totally ****ing blind, shrouded skeletons, apparently, there is no escape from the Blind Dead.
The Blind Dead are pretty awesome. There's just something so wonderfully macabre about these blind shrouded skeletons busting out of their coffins and then just relentlessly pursuing people who are too stupid to just stay quiet (since the Blind Dead are, ya know, blind) or run full-out in another direction. I just enjoy watching The Blind Dead. I do."

Also: would appreciate anyone's hot tips on directors who tend to feature the same actress and actor for the director/actress/actor set. Right now I'm coming up blank except for certain series. My main problem is that the obvious ones tend to be films I've already seen.

Return of the Blind Dead, 1973

The blind dead are back! This time they are awakened by one of the town's more colorful citizens, Murdo (José Canalejas), only to set siege on the citizens as they celebrate the anniversary of the executions of the murderous knights Templar. Caught in the ensuing madness are Jack (Tony Kendall) and Vivian (Esperanza Roy), brought together to work a job in the town and with a complicated romantic history. Unfortunately, the town's leadership is corrupt and more than willing to throw others to the blind undead.

This is a very different format from the original, though it's not necessarily a bad thing. The original was structured a bit more as a mystery, taking place over several days. Here we have more of a siege situation: it's not long before a whole group of characters are holed up in a house with a swarm of undead knights waiting outside.

As often happens with sequels, the rules of the game have shifted a bit. While the knights in the original film were relentless in their pursuit of their victims, here the knights park themselves outside, a la The Birds, and just wait, motionless. This time around they are sensitive to noise, chasing whatever makes a sound. These knights only come out in the dark, and the people trapped in the house are just hoping to make it to daylight.

The film does retain some of those eerie sequences of the knights riding on horseback, but it mainly trades in the view of them held stock still. The real horror this time around comes more from the behavior of the people inside the home, particularly the amoral Dacosta (Frank Brana). Thrown into the mix is a child (Maria Nuria), which adds some charge to the different sequences.

Overall, though, the film suffers a bit from a lack of momentum. I would say that it's less exploitative than the original, but it also lacks a bit of urgency.

I hate when that happens.

__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection

Yeah, I don't know what I'm watching that will satisfy that category, but I know Jess Franco did multiple movies with Christopher Lee (and one also with Klaus Kinski), and we know he had a few actresses he made multiple movies with, so I'm just hoping at the end of the wreckage of the month, something obvious will be present.

I don’t know what you’ve seen of Dario Argento’s films, but I’m using the following:
4.*A film with the same Director/Actor*
The Stendahl Syndrome *(Dario and Thomas Kretschmann)
5.*A film with the same Director/Actress
Mother of Tears. (Dario and Asia)
6.*A film with the same Actor/Actress
Argento’s Dracula*
(Asia and Thomas Krestchmann)


*might as well just get it over with.

I'm on the Rob Zombie train.

Yeah, I'm not super happy about it.

Good luck with your Argento run. I liked moments in Stendhal Syndrome, but I felt that the on-screen violence against its female characters was a bit much. All of the sequences showing the interactions with the artwork are great. And there's a sequence in a hotel (you'll know it when you see it) that I thought was visually really neat.

I also watched Tombs of the Blind Dead today, along with some other movies.
I'll write up something tomorrow maybe.


Short version. Much better than The Ghost Galleon. I know someone IRL recommended Night of the Seagulls to me, so at some point I'll get to that (probably not this year).

I considered Zombie as well, with His wife and Bill Moseley but then I realized I’ve only got 2 of his films left to finish which….didn’t help.

Oooh!
Color me excited. I'm looking forward to seeing House of 1,000 Corpses for the first time in years (that was one of my favorites back in a day) and I may do Lords Of Salem or 31 before all is said and done.

Every time he's come up, multiple people have been like "Don't watch them. You will hate them." Which means I have plenty to choose from.

I'm going with 3 From Hell, 31, and that way I can finish with The Munsters, which at least should feature less torture.

My feeling thus far is that these characters are deeply unpleasant, but not in a very interesting way.

They are deeply unpleasant, yeah. I haven’t seen 31 or Lords Of Salem yet, and didn’t consider The Munsters because I wasn’t sure how much horror that really is.

That said, I have liked his films pre Halloween remakes and I often wonder how his take on The Blob would have worked out he he been able to film it.

So far I’ve seen The Velvet Vampire and It Follows today, and am going to follow it up with Viy and Prophecy (1979) tonight.

Both were ok.

Have you seen House of 1,000 Corpses or The Devil's Rejects? Cause those normally come before 3 From Hell.

I'm counting it, LOL!

I haven't. But also I have been repeatedly warned against them by multiple people. Misery slogs are not my thing, at all.

I just meant that 3 From Hell is the third in the series of those characters.
As a rule, misery slogs are not my thing either, I actually have only seen The Devil's Rejects twice because it's just too much of a grind for me at times. But when Ho1kC came out, there really was no "torture porn" and so it wasn't just another of those it was the only thing like it, plus that particular film is maybe the most hyper-stylized of Zombie's films and is totally batshit crazy when it's not being creatively cruel.