2021 Halloween Challenge

Tools    







Horror of Dracula, 1958

Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen) travels to the castle of Count Dracula, intent on destroying the vampire. Unfortunately for him, he is unable to complete his mission. Harker's associate, Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) discovers the death of his companion, but is then startled to find that Harker's loved ones, including Lucy (Carol Marsh) and Mina (Melissa Stribling), are under threat from the angered Count.

What a great film to wrap up this October challenge!

Watching adaptations of Dracula, I've often had reason to grouse about the liberties taken with the characters and the plot. This film is actually a pretty big departure from the original novel---both in changing and omitting certain key elements--but it has a fidelity to the character dynamics and the themes of the novel that I feel I've rarely seen.

It's not often that I wish a horror film had been longer, but given the excellent way this film was plotted and paced, I would have LOVED to see the creative minds behind it create an adaptation of the whole novel.

One of my favorite things about this adaptation was the way that it portrayed the devious hold that Dracula had over its victims. It's true that it keeps the underlying sexual implications (Dracula pushes not one but two of his female victims down into their beds, kissing them before the fatal bite), but it explicitly also compares this dynamic to that of drug addiction. And I was impressed by just how bold the performances are from Marsh and Stribling in this regard. They lay in bed, trembling, afraid and yet desperate for Dracula to come through their windows. It's a rather raw portrayal of a kind of addictive lust, underscored by the confusion about what exactly is happening to them.

The film maintains one of the best and creepiest episodes from the novel: that of the undead Lucy luring away a child to feast on her. The scene doesn't begin with Van Helsin and the other men, as it does in the book. Instead, it originates with a weeping Tania (Janina Faye) returning home from a frightening experience, ominously declaring that someone had appeared and invited her to come away for a walk.

Cushing is great as Van Helsing. While he's a bit more formal and maybe a bit less empathetic than the book version (for the record, book Van Helsing is a great character, so I am very judgey about adaptations of his character), he still manages to convey the intelligence and diligence of the man. In many sequences he is understandably exasperated as those around him make clumsy, deadly mistakes because they do not understand the implications of their actions.

Christopher Lee's Dracula is also a pretty great incarnation. Mostly silent, and watchfully predatory, there is something otherworldly about the character. There's also the clear delight that he takes in dominating others, and a feral menace to the way that he pursues Harker's family and loved ones purely out of spite.

I think a great job was done in choosing what to include or omit. Obviously, the death of Harker is a MAJOR departure. But this film also chooses to set all of the action in the same country--no major overseas trips from Transylvania. There is also no Renfield or the equivalent to be found. Dracula operates on his own, with the occasional help of a victim under his thrall. And yet the film still holds onto a few echoes from the novel. I really liked a sequence where Van Helsing and his main ally, Arthur (Michael Gough) discuss strategy, seemingly oblivious to Mina who sits silent--but listening!--in the background. This recalls a whole two chapters from the novel where the men choose to cut Mina out of their planning, despite the fact that she has information that would be key to discovering and defeating the vampire.

Just all around great stuff and certainly my favorite Dracula adaptation that I've seen.




And, just for reference, here's what I watched for this challenge:

Part 1 (What's in a Name)
1. A horror film with 1 word Lucky
2. A horror film with 2 words Psycho Goreman
3. A horror film with 3 words Bay of Blood
4. A horror film with 4 words Dave Made a Maze
5. A horror film that is a complete sentence The Red Queen Kills Seven Times

Part 2 (All about the franchises)
6. An original franchise Saw
7. A sequel to a franchise (can be a different franchise) Slumber Party Massacre 2
8. A reboot, remake, or prequel to a horror film My Bloody Valentine
9. A late sequel (past part four) Puppet Master: The Littlest Reich
10. An obvious cheap ripoff of a major horror franchise Devil Fish

Part 3 (Trip to Europe)
11. A film from UK A Field in England
12. A film from France Raw
13. A film from Germany The Golden Glove
14. A film from Italy The Beyond
15. A film with someone traveling to a European country Party Hard Die Young

Part 4 (where to find it)
16. A film on Netflix Aftermath
17. A film on Amazon Lair of the White Worm
18. A film on Hulu Saint Maud
19 A film on Shudder Edge of the Axe
20. A film on a different streaming site The Wolf Man

Part 5 (It's not the size of the horror)
21. A horror short film under 30 minutes Separation
22. A classic B film that is just over an hour The Raven
23. A VHS era film that is around 90 minutes Cold Light of Day
24. A major Hollywood horror release under 2 hours Us
25. A horror epic that is over 2 and half hours House That Jack Built

Part 6
26. A horror film released in October of any year Night of the Demons
27. A horror film that was economically the biggest one of the year The Village
28. A horror film released in 2021 Till Death
29. A horror film released in October 2021 There’s Someone Inside Your House
30. A horror film that is on the Movieforum list. Return of the Living Dead
31. A horror film on the Time Out top 100 horror film list Horror of Dracula



If one complains about "wide shots of the horizon" and all the "gun violence" in a particular Western, as if these were surprising or disappointing features to find in the genre, such criticism suggests unfamiliarity with the genre. It's like going to McDonald's and announcing disappointment at all of the burger-type menu choices.

If I had the sense that Takoma were a younger person taking a tour of 80s cinema, I could see the disappointment and share in it. Like many, if not most, of us here, however, Takoma is older (or shall we say, old enough to be a known cinephile with decades of cinematic engagement, reflection, and commentary). This isn't Takoma's first rodeo, and it isn't the first time that Takoma has ridden this bull.

Also, "problematic" is a curious word in this context. That which is "problematic" suggests that which is typically freighted with problems, but not necessarily a problem in any given case. The "problematic" is that which is uncertain, dubious, indeterminate (Hey, we could be getting into trouble here...). "Problematic" is not the word that really fits here, but rather "problem." The term "problematic" bespeaks the piety of our new secular religion, but is rather coy and indirect (i.e., racism isn't "problematic," it's a problem - what is problematic are those policies and attitudes which are not directly racist, but which are implicated in possibly forwarding racist consequences).

Must we always invoke such pieties when visiting artworks of the past? "I just read the Iliad again and was disappointed by the valorization of toxic masculinity as arete in Greek culture. I really hoped Homer would do better."

Now, I will say that, on occasion, I visit an older film an I am much struck by a feature which today we would judge negatively. I recall, for example, watching David Jannsen in a mini-series titled The Word on YouTube which also features Star Trek alumni Kate Mulgrew, and Diana Muldaur along with players such as John Huston. It was obviously going to be horrible, but the collection of players was interesting. At any rate, every woman in the show wanted to (or did) become romantically entangled with the male protagonist. I was much struck by this--the implied viewer of the show was apparently in dire need of being desired by beautiful women. This seemed to me to be a needy masculinity--men apparently so unsure and unfulfilled in their "alpha" status demanded by society, in their virility, in their desert for love and attention that every female character in the film absolutely had to be sexually accessible to our audience surrogate. It was kind of pathetic, really. And, of course, that was quite typical of the age, so I should not have been surprised by it. But I was.

Thus, I can see watching an old film and being hit by what one should have expected. Even so, complaining about leering camera shots in 80s horror is a bit like complaining about all the sex in porn. I don't really buy it.
Horizon shots in a Western aren't an inherently negative aspect the same way that objectification of women in movies is, though, and this subject isn't fundamentally different from the debate over the wisdom of a feminist/female Bond movie; just because something helps to define a series or genre doesn't mean that it's a positive aspect, or that it shouldn't be retroactively criticized, or discouraged from including in future films.

I mean, I get the point that it can be annoying when people harp too much on offensive parts of older movies; after all, while I love Tom Breihan's genre retrospectives for The AV Club, I still got annoyed when he would criticize whitewashing each and every time it occured in every old movie he mentioned, even in the ones he wasn't actually writing articles on. It's like, I get it dude, you think putting Alec Guiness in brownface to play an Arab man in Lawrence Of Arabia was a bad idea; welcome to the 21st century. However, I don't think Takoma's one complaint (as far as I can recall) about objectification in one movie so far in this thread qualifies as a similar level of overkill; I mean, she just posted a very positive write-up for Return Of The Living Dead without so much as mentioning (let alone complaining about) the female nudity in that movie, so it's obvious that she's not out on some "problematic" witchhunt here, and it makes perfect sense that she would complain about that in a movie that she was more mixed on on the whole anyway, if you ask me.



October 5th The Devils Hand (1943)
A French Horror Film




Normally I'm against remakes but The Devil's Hand or La Main du Diable or Carnival of Sinners is ripe for a remake. Sadly 40's horror is all atmosphere and humor and less hard stuff this is a solid PG horror film. This is the sort of thing that could be a Disney story. Basically the idea is a struggling artist makes a deal with the chef to because a great artist...the chef gives up his hand and the artist becomes great. Sadly the devil comes to collect and horror ensues.

Like most french horror of this time, shadows and imagery are the stars of the film. You have this table of owners of the devils hand which is incredibly creepy but played for slightness. I wonder if a remake that told the story more in a linear fashion with the artist as a bookend might have made for a better film. Though still I enjoyed it well enough,




Registered User
Originally Posted by Morrison
You city folk are a strange lot; you say "shock me," and then when I do, you say, "Oh no, I didn't expect that!"
Name the film?

Horizon shots in a Western aren't an inherently negative aspect the same way that objectification of women in movies is, though, and this subject isn't fundamentally different from the debate over the wisdom of a feminist/female Bond movie; just because something helps to define a series or genre doesn't mean that it's a positive aspect, or that it shouldn't be retroactively criticized, or discouraged from including in future films.
If so, one should criticize the genre, not the film.

EX: We can rightful criticize the American predilection for eating meat, but if you go to a steak house...

I mean, I get the point that it can be annoying when people harp too much on offensive parts of older movies; after all, while I love Tom Breihan's genre retrospectives for The AV Club, I still got annoyed when he would criticize whitewashing each and every time it occured in every old movie he mentioned, even in the ones he wasn't actually writing articles on. It's like, I get it dude, you think putting Alec Guiness in brownface to play an Arab man in Lawrence Of Arabia was a bad idea; welcome to the 21st century.
Sure. You bet.

However, I don't think Takoma's one complaint (as far as I can recall) about objectification in one movie so far in this thread qualifies as a similar level of overkill;
Well, it's certainly not a war crime or mortal sin or something. I just don't happen to buy it. I think such pieties are almost obligatory these days - that we must criticize before we may admit that we also enjoyed an older artwork. It's a sort of self-policing that we engage in from time-to-time.

At any rate, it's not my place to legislate Takoma's subjective response to a film. And one can, on occasion, be much struck by what is (all things considered) a feature which is typical for the genre. I noted such an instance in my prior post (my experience watching The Word). And in this particular film in question, there is a scene with a lipstick, a breast, and a sort of insertion which I found distasteful when I first viewed the film on it's release (and I am not a fan of it today). If Takoma had mentioned this bit, I would have agreed that this was a bit much (at least for me).

But the idea that cameras would leer at scantily clad females? Nah. That was not a surprise. Was it?

I mean, she just posted a very positive write-up for Return Of The Living Dead without so much as mentioning (let alone complaining about) the female nudity in that movie,
That was downthread of the OP, so not necessarily proof of anything. And let's face it, the film is awesome so the dance of the dead is forgivable (and I promise that I avert my gaze when that scene comes up - scout's honor).

so it's obvious that she's not out on some "problematic" witchhunt here, and it makes perfect sense that she would complain about that in a movie that she was more mixed on on the whole anyway, if you ask me.
You were the one who used the word problematic. I am on a witchhunt against your usage, because the word "problematic" is problematic. It's code for "heresy." I have a real problem with it and I maintain that we would be better served by more frequently using a world like "problem" instead. However, I recognize that my ire for this damnable term may itself be... ...problematic. Alas, I have been cursed since that word became part of my vocabulary twenty years ago in grad school.

We live in a curious relationship to our past. Not everything "back then" was innocent or cool. I was there in the 80s when people casually used the F-word to refer to homosexuals. Some people (e.g., Matt Damon) have claimed that such usage back then was just a way busting chops. It was not. It was homophobic. The 80's were gay as a blade, but also deeply homophobic. Like all times, things were in transition and matters were complicated. There is much of which to be ashamed of in our past and this includes art.

That stated, unless we're going to start burning books

https://www.wsj.com/articles/book-bu...es-11633543158

in the name of our new secular religion, or erase even recent history like Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticizing kneeling at NFL games

https://www.tech-gate.org/gossip/202...or-the-anthem/

or destroy ancient history like the Taliban blowing up statues of Buddha, then we must consider be willing to embrace our past, warts and all, if we are to learn from it, all the way down the N-word in Huck Finn and dare I say it, all those boobs in horror movies. If there is a hill I must die on, let it be this!

There was a Christian outfit, years ago, that was editing movies to rent at video stores to be more family friendly. Posters on RT were outraged at the thought of prudes mangling artworks. Eventually the group was sued by Hollywood and I think that was the end of it. On the one hand, I don't care how anyone privately edits or shares a movie. If Christians want watered down movies, fine. On the other hand, I am quite sensitive to government, cultural movements, or Big Tech doing this for me (or pressuring me to comply, however subtly). A big hell-to-the-no on that one and on a scale from 1-to-Even, I Cannot!

Little instances of self-policing. Little moments of self-flagellation. Those obligatory pieties that must be mouthed, like Communist book reviewers promising their readers that they should not be taken in by Capitalist lies, is more verbal work than is needed and shows us drifting in the wrong direction, at least that is my opinion.

We are, of course, always negotiating bounds of propriety, and although I can be a bit of a prude when it comes to film (I am constantly complaining about unnecessary "love scenes"), I am also sensitive to the need to have a care about casually prejudging the past from our allegedly "superior" modern vantage point. If anything, our greatest challenge is to find a way to connect with past artworks (to find what Gadamer called a "fusion of horizons"). I don't think any of us are really "right" per se, so much as we are part of this never-ending dialogue about propriety. Mine is simply a counter-point offered in jest. Serious play, but still... ...play.



October 6th The Manor (2021)
-an Amazon streaming film



The Manor came out this year...it could also work as an October release but it's the story of a grandmother who is sent to a home after suffering a stroke. Once she enters the home creepy things start to happen and bodies start piling up.

For me this felt like a Twilight Zone episode where it had decent if not somewhat subspectacular FX, a very strong lead performance and some decent twists. Barabara Hersey is really incredible in this, she's sort of campaigning to me to be the new Jessica Fletcher because she almost feels like a bit of an action hero in this. I am very interested in seeing what Axelle Carolyn does next because this feels like a test film for a possible great future horror director.




A system of cells interlinked
Added The Beyond (1981) to the category A film from Italy.
__________________
"There’s absolutely no doubt you can be slightly better tomorrow than you are today." - JBP





Party Hard, Die Young, 2018

Funny, the look on her face just seems so incongruous to her situation.



Going back...
I still don't know what to say about Eye of the Devil. If you want something that's kind of in the area of The Innocents or The Haunting in terms of era and quality (though I think those two are better), then you should probably make time for it. Anything else feels like a spoiler.


I saw this and more or less liked it, though I think I felt it was a bit light all around.
I think I saw it the same day I saw Day Of The Triffids, which makes a significantly bigger impression.





Return of the Living Dead, 1985

Freddy (Thom Mathews) has just started a new job at a sketchy medical supply company. When his co-worker Frank (James Karen) tells him about living dead creatures kept in the basement, Freddy is intrigued. But when the men accidentally crack a storage container filled with a mysterious gas, the dead begin to come back to life. Soon a squad of Freddy's punk friends, his girlfriend Tina (Beverly Randolph), and a local mortician (Don Calfa) are up against a whole gaggle of reanimated corpses.

Okay, yes, thank you. THIS is a horror worthy of October!

You know, it's really rare that horror films are able to balance heart, scares, and comedy, and it's such a delight when it works out as well as this.

To start with the comedy, the film scores on multiple levels. The practical effects are gruesome, but also comedic. Early on we see a reanimated half-dog. Zombie heads are knocked off with aplomb. The characters rely on their knowledge of other zombie films--Night of the Living Dead is repeatedly and explicitly referenced--to survive, and express annoyance when the zombies don't follow the "rules".

The comedy also works as the film develops an entire host of weird, engaging characters. Freddy, the dopey young man. Ernie, the local mortician who might also be a Nazi? Frank, who responds to the effects of the gas with a mix of world-weary "of course" vibes and middle-aged grumpiness. Tina, the "nice girl" who tries to stand by her man, even as the gas begins to take a serious toll on him. Clu Gulager is also a standout as the owner of the medical supply company who will do anything to avoid involving the authorities. Heck, even the two unnamed paramedics who show up halfway through the film make an impression as they have a whispered conversation to discuss a disturbing lack of vital signs in a patient.

On the scares front, the film hits just the right pitch. The creature in the image at the top of the review is called Tarman, and his lurching-but-intentional movements are at once comedic and frightening. This film takes the novel approach of having the zombie move quickly and actually be intelligent. They can speak and reason, leading to some shocking sequences where the monsters we expect to be lumbering blank slates turn out to have personalities and some devious plans. There is something particularly horrifying about the progression of Freddy's reaction to the gas, and several characters face horrible demises.

But mostly the film has heart, and that's what really makes it stand out. Yes, on one level it is very cynical. Yes, there are several "throwaway" deaths of characters. But there are also several deaths that are tragedies--and the film isn't afraid to linger an extra moment or two for us to mourn and appreciate this. We see it in the way that Tina holds Freddy as he breaks down over what is happening to him. We see it in little moments, like a character pondering a mercy killing when things begin to look particularly bleak. The characters might in some cases be caricatures, but their interactions and personalities (over the top though they may be) make you care about them.

This film is what I was hoping Night of the Demons would be. It has great momentum and it balances absurd deaths and set-pieces with a genuine affection for its characters. This was a lot of fun, and a real pick-me-up.

This is one of my favorite movies ever.
When I was a teenager, it was my favorite movie, period (other than Rocky Horror, of course) for a while, and I watched this film somewhere between 25 and 50 times.
It's just so fun.
"I like death."
"I like death with sex, what about you, Casey, you like sex with death?"
"Yeah, so f*ck off and die."



Registered User
Funny, the look on her face just seems so incongruous to her situation.
Yeah, it looks like she is waiting for the director to yell "ACTION!" or something.



This is one of my favorite movies ever.
When I was a teenager, it was my favorite movie, period (other than Rocky Horror, of course) for a while, and I watched this film somewhere between 25 and 50 times.
It's just so fun.
"I like death."
"I like death with sex, what about you, Casey, you like sex with death?"
"Yeah, so f*ck off and die."
Yeah, the whole vibe of it is really strong. Basically everyone is their own kind of weird and absurd and watching them bounce off of each other is a lot of fun.



“Send more cops….”
The zombies
WARNING: spoilers below
being able to talk and think and plan was maybe my favorite element.

When the tarman goes after the girl in the basement and immediately hooks the chain up to the door to pull it open, I really sat up straight. Not something I've ever seen before and a really neat twist on the idea of the zombie.

And that final shot of Freddy bursting into the attic right as the bomb falls was such a powerful and shocking ending.


*chef's kiss* to the whole thing.



The trick is not minding
The zombies
WARNING: spoilers below
being able to talk and think and plan was maybe my favorite element.

When the tarman goes after the girl in the basement and immediately hooks the chain up to the door to pull it open, I really sat up straight. Not something I've ever seen before and a really neat twist on the idea of the zombie.

And that final shot of Freddy bursting into the attic right as the bomb falls was such a powerful and shocking ending.


*chef's kiss* to the whole thing.
Yeah, it’s endlessly rewatchable because it’s just so fun but still keeps a serious tone throughout. Especially that ending, as you mentioned.
And the script! Lines like “*I mean I got something to say. What do you think this is about? You think this is a fu**ing costume?...This is a way of life!”
And the conversation with the zombie about why they eat brains is just too good. *



Yeah, it’s endlessly rewatchable because it’s just so fun but still keeps a serious tone throughout. Especially that ending, as you mentioned.
And the script! Lines like “*I mean I got something to say. What do you think this is about? You think this is a fu**ing costume?...This is a way of life!”
And the conversation with the zombie about why they eat brains is just too good. *
Yes, certainly the kind of film that rewards watching it again because even the set has fun little quirks to it (like the "eye test" that has a message in it about the company's owner).





The Unnamable, 1988

Pompous college trio Randolph (Mark Kinsey Stephenson), Howard (Charles Klausmeyer), and Joel (Mark Parra) discuss the legend of a supposedly cursed house, inhabited by a mysterious creature known as The Unnamable. Joel decides to go explore the house, but does not return. On the same night that Randolph and Howard decide to go investigate, Wendy (Laura Albert) and Tanya (Alexandra Durrell) are taken to the house by a pair of bros, John (Blane Wheatley) and Bruce (Eben Ham) who are hoping to romance the ladies with ghost stories and a spooky atmosphere. The Unnamable (Katrin Alexandre) is not pleased with their intrusion.

It's always fun to watch something recommended by a friend, because your default mindset becomes trying to see what they like about it and it puts you in a more receptive, positive frame of mind.

I did enjoy this film, which is adapted from an HP Lovecraft short story of the same name. The film is decidedly low-budget, but for the most part it manages to be very charming.

Call it the Jaws effect, but one of the best things about the film is the time that it takes building suspense and atmosphere in the house. It is fully halfway into the film before things really begin to go down in earnest. But wisely, the house is made as much of a character as the monster. One of the girls remarks, as they walk around, "Huh. It's bigger on the inside." Not just a collection of spooky hallways and decrepit bedrooms, the house seems to shift and work with the monster. Doors lock themselves or swing open. A character walking with a group suddenly turns a corner to find herself alone. Meanwhile, an ominous blood filled bowl sits in a corner, unnoticed by the characters.

The characters are, for the most part, pretty fun. I got a kick out of the two women and the two college guys walking through the house with the women quickly shooting down any stupid ideas--like wandering into the basement of splitting up in the house. Randolph is the very model of someone quirky and self-involved, approaching the situation with a comedic scientific detachment. When Howard runs to him in a panic, having found their friend dead, Randolph responds with a scholarly, "Yes, that makes sense" and goes back to reading his newly discovered text.

I also liked the character of the monster. In both visual and sound design, she really does look like some unfortunate mix of a woman and a demon. The screams, especially, sound a lot like a woman in pain. For the most part, the sense of the monster is something feral and not necessarily evil, if that makes sense. I'm not sure if that was the intent, but for me it made the monster more interesting and tragic. Trapped between humanity and evil, she really doesn't belong anywhere.

The only thing I had mixed feelings about was the treatment of the character of Wendy. Early on, we see Howard follow Wendy out from the library, where she asks him to stop following her. She is polite but firm about it. Later, though, Howard and Tanya basically lay into Wendy. Howard speculates that Tanya doesn't like him because she's secretly afraid of men. Um, wut? Tanya asks what it is that men see in Wendy, and grouses about Wendy getting attention because of her body. This is a gross way to talk about anyone, much less someone who is your friend. When Howard shows up at the house, Wendy is clearly afraid of him, believing that he is stalking her. But this is portrayed as her being stupid. It just didn't sit quite right with me. If we were meant to root against Wendy, then she should have been more unlikable. As it was, her great crime was not wanting to date one of the main male characters and having a nice body? Question: did the dude who wrote this script have an ex-wife called Wendy? Just curious.

The treatment of Wendy aside, the character interactions are fun. The explanation of the origin of the monster and the ultimate resolution of the whole situation is absurd but in a great way. I can't even bring myself to type out how the situation ultimately resolves, and I kind of get the giggles thinking about it. (I mean, there's also a dose of tragedy to it, but mostly giggles).

A fun romp, and not a film I'd even heard of before it was mentioned by Wooley. Good recommendation, and definitely a great October flick!




The Amityville Horror (1979)


So, take a much lesser version of The Exorcist* and a much lesser version of The Shining, mix them together, but still attempted by a major studio, and that feels close to what you get here.

Also a little reverse-Omen, when Damien freaked out about getting near a church.

Actually, maybe not even mix them together, since the priest could never get on the screen at the same time as the family.

Though, I didn't realize the first Conjuring movie was mostly stealing from this one (my only exposure to the franchise was roughly some significant percentage of the second one, I think, that I caught on TV as a teen). Which, was a very different movie.
WARNING: spoilers below
lot more incest and killing in the one I saw.


I will say, this one does have it's moments. One of them being the cold open.
WARNING: spoilers below
and the walls bleeding, a touch that still manages to not get old.


I will say, this does make me appreciate The Changeling more in terms of what it (The Changeling) was willing to spend time building towards.

*: A version where you want the father in spiritual combat with the forces of evil from close to the beginning of the movie. And just trying to talk to them on the phone or drive over is an impossible task.

Satisfies... nothing? Did this do well at the box office? Maybe I could use it to satisfy that goal? I really don't believe in looking at box office numbers for movies, so I won't ever know.
I was going to use this as a major Hollywood studio release under 2 hours, but then I was tired and watched Jennifer's Body earlier this week.



The Unnamable, 1988

Pompous college trio Randolph (Mark Kinsey Stephenson), Howard (Charles Klausmeyer), and Joel (Mark Parra) discuss the legend of a supposedly cursed house, inhabited by a mysterious creature known as The Unnamable. Joel decides to go explore the house, but does not return. On the same night that Randolph and Howard decide to go investigate, Wendy (Laura Albert) and Tanya (Alexandra Durrell) are taken to the house by a pair of bros, John (Blane Wheatley) and Bruce (Eben Ham) who are hoping to romance the ladies with ghost stories and a spooky atmosphere. The Unnamable (Katrin Alexandre) is not pleased with their intrusion.

I feel like this is a movie I saw the last 1/2 hour of on tv as a tween, and was pretty sure of the title, but whenever I tried to look it up, got a different movie.