2021 Halloween Challenge

Tools    





Victim of The Night
October 28th Hell Night (1981)
A VHS era film that is around 90 minutes



This one was just an odd Slasher, Hell Night tells the story of four "pledges" who decide they have to spend the night in a haunted (and furnished) house. It's odd to compare this to The Old Dark House because it's very similar is structure but terrible in execution. I liked the setting and the feel of the house but the pacing was just all over the place. The sexy girl is killed off in the first act and then we get chubby Linda Blair running around trying to be Jamie Lee Curtis but not really. I'm surprised this film received positive reviews because to me this was just really mediocre.


And this one.



Looks like I was able to add Requiem for the Vampire (France) (which preceded the 13 movie run), Possessor (October of any year), Burial Ground (Italy - though could also be considered a Zombie knock-off), and The Children (VHS era movie over 90 minutes).
If I was counting rewatches, I could also add Friday the 13th part 6 for sequel to a franchise.


Otherwise I didn't see anything the other movies counted towards.



Possessor (October of any year).
What did you think of Possessor?

After hearing it hyped by some viewers, then hearing other people be like "meh", and then actually watching it myself, I found myself really pleasantly surprised by it. I'm really looking forward to a rewatch.

Here's a Possessor-related anecdote: I was watching a film and I couldn't place an actor.
WARNING: spoilers below
I was like "I feel as if I saw this person . . . naked? But not in a sexy way. In an . . . . upsetting way?". Anyway, it was Christopher Abbott so those memories were VERY CORRECT



A system of cells interlinked
Added Evil Dead (2013) in the category A Reboot or Prequel of a Horror Movie.

Sadly, that is it for me. Crashed and burned in the last week, as my whole family was sick, and we had almost no time to fit in horror flicks with the wee lass hanging around and up at all hours.

Thanks for putting this together Siddon! It's always a blast.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



So here's the write ups for the last four films I marathoned on Halloween

October 29th There's Someone Inside Your House (2021)
29. A horror film released in October 2021




More woke horror There's Someone Inside Your house takes a group of multi-ethnic "friends" who are dying one by one by a killer that unleashes the victims "sins". Even though these movies are completely boring and predictable at the very least this film didn't hide it's absurd liberal agenda. Basically the films formula is an introduction to white person...killer shows why white person is bad...killer kills with mask of said white person.

The film uses it's budget well, we get a number of set pieces and the story gets to breathe a bit. Not that the characters aren't interchangeable bland Disney channel rejects...but hey that's life in todays films. Uninspired and lazy at the very least the filmmakers try and make the kills distinct and we get decent gore. Sadly sex is completely stripped from this film and others of it's kind which is also annoying.

Killer reveal is alright and the motive is fitting for the film but man Netflix really needs to get on the ball to give people alternates to same old same.




October 30th Old (2021)
28. A horror film released in 2021




M Night Shyamalan doesn't get enough credit in my opinion. Old is the story of 12 people stuck on a beach aging rapidly. Why are they there why is this happening and how long to they have are all the central points of the story. It's PG-13 horror film and it is solid and well-crafted though also a bit mixed. Shyamalan has a number of really good ideas and they don't really come together as well as they could but when they work they work really well.

It should be said that the death scenes are really well done and well earned. Because the deaths are somewhat slow and inevitable it's almost more horrifying when the old lady goes first. I think that you still have questions about how logistically a six year old can gain the cognitive abilities as they grow older but their is a scene in a tent where the horror just keeps cranking up and it explodes in a shocking climax.

Act three drags on a bit, you have a heart wrenching moment and then what I feel like was an extra unneeded twist. But still the ideas are there and frankly original to the crap I've been watching this year.




October 31st The Deeper You Dig (2019)
A Film on Shudder




A man kills a child in the woods, the childs mother is a psychic both characters are haunted in a game of cat and mouse. This is a low budget horror film with big ideas and tremendous visual storytelling. If their is one thing I couldn't stand this year it was laziness and this is not a lazy film. You are horrified five minutes in and the ride keeps going and shifting throughout the runtime.


Unfortunately the film does have it's short comings, the acting isn't great. Though it's better than you would expect and manages to hit several high notes. Everything could have been a little bit better but it's still really good. The CGI fails at points but still the use of practical effects really saves the story and film. I kinda hope this gets the Evil Dead treatment with a remake with money because the story and filmmaker have potential.



So here's the write ups for the last four films I marathoned on Halloween

October 29th There's Someone Inside Your House (2021)
29. A horror film released in October 2021



at the very least this film didn't hide it's absurd liberal agenda. Basically the films formula is an introduction to white person...killer shows why white person is bad...killer kills with mask of said white person.
Huh. The "formula" you're claiming isn't actually the pattern of the killings.

(MODERATE SPOILERS)
I mean, isn't part of the point of the film that it leads you to assume a "liberal agenda" by having the first two victims be
WARNING: spoilers below
a homophobe and a racist, respectively, and then subvert that expectation by having the third victim be Latino (whose "crime" is addiction) and the fourth victim (who does manage to escape because she's the main character) be Black? And doesn't the gay football player character also get attacked in the last act?


In fact, the dark joke of the film is that the killer
WARNING: spoilers below
sees homophobia and racism as being on par with drug addiction or accidentally injuring someone. He's a total sociopath, and he's literally looking for any reason to be "justified" in killing someone.


Don't get me wrong, it's a very sub-par film. But saying that it's just a parade of evil white people being offed is a strange misrepresentation.



Well the killer uses "privilege" as his motivation and don't forget the last victim
WARNING: spoilers below
an old rich and powerful white man...hello patriarchy



My issue with films like this is less the politics and more the fact that these leads are ironically bland and interchangeable. Also something has to be said for the fact that you have what I guess was a trans person and another black character that was just there...to be there. It's almost like modern films are scared to give types of people personalities and when they do exist they are just bland and forgettable.



Well the killer uses "privilege" as his motivation and don't forget the last victim
WARNING: spoilers below
an old rich and powerful white man...hello patriarchy



My issue with films like this is less the politics and more the fact that these leads are ironically bland and interchangeable. Also something has to be said for the fact that you have what I guess was a trans person and another black character that was just there...to be there. It's almost like modern films are scared to give types of people personalities and when they do exist they are just bland and forgettable.
But you seem to be arguing two different things at the same time: first that the victims are getting what they "deserve" just for being horrible white people, but then flipping it around and saying that the
WARNING: spoilers below
killer is the horrible white person
.

I don't think that the pivot point in this film is race, I think it's wealth. The main character
WARNING: spoilers below
is guilty by association because of his family's immense wealth and the way his father has gone about building his empire. He decides to take out his anger on other people whose "crimes" are more hidden. The first two victims lead you to assume a pattern, but then deviates from it intentionally to show that he doesn't really care about someone beating someone up for being gay, or having a racist podcast, or being an addict. He just wants other people to feel shame and pain for the things they are hiding from others.


Teen slasher films, by vast, vast majority, are populated by forgettable, interchangeable, bland teenagers. It's nothing to do with including a more diverse cast, it's just the way that most slashers are written. How is the film better if instead of a trans character and another supporting black character you have two cis-gender white teenagers? Does the film automatically become more memorable if those characters are white? Are we assuming that there was some dynamite white character and a studio executive angrily crossed them out in the script and demanded that they be replaced by a bland, non-white character?

I think that conflating diverse casting with unimaginative writing is asserting a correlation that just doesn't exist, or at least not in the direction you're asserting. I do believe that creators are under scrutiny to include more diversity, and that it's become another box to tick. But I can think about a ton of horror films from the 70s/80s/90s that have all-white or almost all-white casts that have just many problems with being bland and forgettable as There's Somebody in Your House. I just watched the My Bloody Valentine remake (a film with only one non-white character, and a supporting character at that) and darned if I could name a single character, or if I found any of them interesting aside from some bold nudity from a character who was clearly hired just for that purpose.

Good horror is good horror. That can mean an all-white cast (as in Hush) or a very diverse cast (as in The Invitation).



But you seem to be arguing two different things at the same time: first that the victims are getting what they "deserve" just for being horrible white people, but then flipping it around and saying that the
WARNING: spoilers below
killer is the horrible white person
.

I don't think that the pivot point in this film is race, I think it's wealth. The main character
WARNING: spoilers below
is guilty by association because of his family's immense wealth and the way his father has gone about building his empire. He decides to take out his anger on other people whose "crimes" are more hidden. The first two victims lead you to assume a pattern, but then deviates from it intentionally to show that he doesn't really care about someone beating someone up for being gay, or having a racist podcast, or being an addict. He just wants other people to feel shame and pain for the things they are hiding from others.


Teen slasher films, by vast, vast majority, are populated by forgettable, interchangeable, bland teenagers. It's nothing to do with including a more diverse cast, it's just the way that most slashers are written. How is the film better if instead of a trans character and another supporting black character you have two cis-gender white teenagers? Does the film automatically become more memorable if those characters are white? Are we assuming that there was some dynamite white character and a studio executive angrily crossed them out in the script and demanded that they be replaced by a bland, non-white character?

I think that conflating diverse casting with unimaginative writing is asserting a correlation that just doesn't exist, or at least not in the direction you're asserting. I do believe that creators are under scrutiny to include more diversity, and that it's become another box to tick. But I can think about a ton of horror films from the 70s/80s/90s that have all-white or almost all-white casts that have just many problems with being bland and forgettable as There's Somebody in Your House. I just watched the My Bloody Valentine remake (a film with only one non-white character, and a supporting character at that) and darned if I could name a single character, or if I found any of them interesting aside from some bold nudity from a character who was clearly hired just for that purpose.

Good horror is good horror. That can mean an all-white cast (as in Hush) or a very diverse cast (as in The Invitation).

I'm not arguing two points on the element of "woke" horror. A slasher film needs to be a mystery but when you create a class of characters who can't be killed and can't be the murderer than the film fails on it's fundamental level. This is a problem with modern horror films, they have a checklist of characters who can only do one thing exist.


A number of slasher films have forgettable leads...which is debatable There's Somebody in Your House's problem is Makani Young is the "lead" but what's the point she doesn't really have anything to do with the plot she just exists. She's a random victim that we just sort of follow and has nothing to do with the finale. It's lazy writing and tokenism.



I'm not arguing two points on the element of "woke" horror. A slasher film needs to be a mystery but when you create a class of characters who can't be killed and can't be the murderer than the film fails on it's fundamental level. This is a problem with modern horror films, they have a checklist of characters who can only do one thing exist.
But by your definition, one of the victims belongs to "a class that can't be killed." I thought that the killer was obvious. Not because of his race, but because he didn't serve much of a narrative purpose and yet we saw a LOT of him.

And slashers have always had a class of characters who are clearly not the killer and are obviously there to be killed. In fact, I'd argue that in almost every slasher, the pool of characters who could actually be the killer is pretty small.

A number of slasher films have forgettable leads...which is debatable There's Somebody in Your House's problem is Makani Young is the "lead" but what's the point she doesn't really have anything to do with the plot she just exists. She's a random victim that we just sort of follow and has nothing to do with the finale. It's lazy writing and tokenism.
She is central to the plot because she's a character who has a dark secret in her past, which is the killer's MO. And the reason that she's a sympathetic lead character is that her secret "crime" wasn't intentionally malicious. Being targeted by the killer in a slasher is basically the function of every slasher lead. In fact, many slasher victims are totally random, in the sense that they just happened to be the ones camping in the woods on a certain night, or just happened to be the people whose car broke down, or whatever. Often the lead is just one of the victims we tag along with because they are more sympathetic.

I do not understand the equating of lazy writing and tokenism. Her character could just as easily have been white, but putting a white lead in that role doesn't change the character, the character's past, or the character's involvement in the final act. I also don't understand why you're so mad that a Black actress is the lead. The character's race is not essential to the story. You're welcome to call the writing of the film lazy, I'm not necessarily disagreeing. But arguing that the race of the characters is part of the quality issue seems disingenuous.



But by your definition, one of the victims belongs to "a class that can't be killed." I thought that the killer was obvious. Not because of his race, but because he didn't serve much of a narrative purpose and yet we saw a LOT of him.

And slashers have always had a class of characters who are clearly not the killer and are obviously there to be killed. In fact, I'd argue that in almost every slasher, the pool of characters who could actually be the killer is pretty small.

I don't know if the white latino character really counted enough as a POC. The list of suspects might be small but in most slashers you have a group of victims. I can remember the 80's black victims more than I can recall the survivors because of the set pieces and scenes. Scream has 5 white dudes with brown hair and because they are given personalities the film works.


I do not understand the equating of lazy writing and tokenism. Her character could just as easily have been white, but putting a white lead in that role doesn't change the character, the character's past, or the character's involvement in the final act. I also don't understand why you're so mad that a Black actress is the lead. The character's race is not essential to the story. You're welcome to call the writing of the film lazy, I'm not necessarily disagreeing. But arguing that the race of the characters is part of the quality issue seems disingenuous.

It's cliche'd and derivative I watched four films during this challenge and they all had the same lead. You could have just taken one character and put her in a different film and you wouldn't have even noticed. When I watch a Vampire movie I judge it based on it's differences but when a film just has the same characters with the same backstory and same personality but they are a "marginalized" person oh but it's okay.



The list of suspects might be small but in most slashers you have a group of victims. I can remember the 80's black victims more than I can recall the survivors because of the set pieces and scenes. Scream has 5 white dudes with brown hair and because they are given personalities the film works.
I think that, again, this goes back to an issues you're having with the writing. The film begins with two victims who are distinctly not in the friend group. Then a member of the friend group is killed to demonstrate that they are also possible victims. Then our lead character becomes a target. But from there, the film pivots into the backstory of the main character and her feelings of guilt. It's not a traditional slasher progression, and I don't think it's because of the characters' race/gender/sexuality, I think it's because of how the story was structured. I think it all makes a lot more sense when you consider that this film was based on a novel. This is the type of plot that probably works better in a book than in a film.


It's cliche'd and derivative I watched four films during this challenge and they all had the same lead. You could have just taken one character and put her in a different film and you wouldn't have even noticed.
This is true of a lot of horror. Like, a LOT of horror.

When I watch a Vampire movie I judge it based on it's differences but when a film just has the same characters with the same backstory and same personality but they are a "marginalized" person oh but it's okay.
But . . . who is saying it's okay? I haven't seen any rave reviews of it. It has a 46% critic rating on RT, and many of the "positive" reviews are pretty luke-warm with phrases like "just good enough."

The general reception of this film is that it's a mediocre mystery-thriller-horror. I wrote my review and said that it was fine. And I do think it's fine. I thought that the main character's backstory was interesting and that the flashback sequences to the beach were actually memorable and upsetting. I liked the creepy touch of the masks. I would honestly put in about on par with the My Bloody Valentine remake which was full of forgettable characters and actually has a higher critic ratings.

You're assuming that people are giving the film a free pass (or, sort of a free pass, because I gave it a 3.5) because of its cast. Isn't it possible that people watched it and thought it was passable?



The trick is not minding
It occurs to me that I never updated this at the end of the month. Final tally!

Part 1 (What's in a Name)
1. A horror film with 1 word*
Squirm
2. A horror film with 2 words
The Beyond
3. A horror film with 3 words
The Devil Bat
4. A horror film with 4 words
Day of the Dead
5. A horror film that is a complete sentence

Part 2 (All about the franchises)
6. An original franchise*
Horror of Dracula (finally!)
7. A sequel to a franchise (can be a different franchise)
8. A reboot, remake, or prequel to a horror film
9. A late sequel (past part four)
Halloween Kills
10. An obvious cheap ripoff of a major horror franchise
Forbidden World

Part 3 (Trip to Europe)
11. A film from UK
The Gorgon
12. A film from France
The Tenant
13. A film from Germany
14. A film from Italy
Kill Baby….Kill!
15. A film with someone traveling to a European country

Part 4 (where to find it)
16. A film on Netflix
It Comes at Night
17. A film on Amazon
18. A film on Hulu
Sputnik
19 A film on Shudder
La Llorona
20. A film on a different streaming site(Youtube, HBO MAX, Tubi, etc)
Alice, Sweet Alice

Part 5 (It's not the size of the horror)
21. A horror short film under 30 minutes
22. A classic B film that is just over an hour
Earth vs The Spider
23. A VHS era film that is around 90 minutes
New Years Evil
24. A major Hollywood horror release under 2 hours
25. A horror epic that is over 2 and half hours

Part 6

26. A horror film released in October of any year
27. A horror film that was economically the biggest one of the year
28. A horror film released in 2021
In The Earth
29. A horror film released in October 2021
Last Night in Soho
30. A horror film that is on the Movieforum list.
Near Dark
31. A horror film on the Time Out top 100 horror film list
Black Sunday
https://www.flickchart.com/Charts.as...47&perpage=100



The trick is not minding
I’m forgetting a few. Not counting rewatches (Candyman, Anaconda) I’m missing others I’m sure could plug a few holes there. I watched 43 films last month I think?



The trick is not minding
Yeah, really enjoying Bava. In The Earth has opened up Wheatley’s filmography, so I need to backtrack and watch his other stuff.
La Llorona was a nice mix of horror and politics from Guatemala.

VC was good, as I mentioned previously, but a little stuffy at times.