Category Archives: Horror

May-2003

May-2003

Director Lucky McKee

Starring Angela Bettis, Jeremy Sisto, Anna Faris

Scott’s Review #985

Reviewed January 30, 2020

Grade: B+

May (2003) is a macabre and twisted psychological horror film and the directorial film debut from Lucky McKee. Though not a box-office success, the film has become a cult favorite and is a feast for lovers of the deprived and tormented.

The wicked fun is to watch the main character, already troubled at the start of the film, dissolve into complete and utter madness.

The acting and the mood are exceptionally crafted.

Growing up with a lazy eye leaving her scarred with never-ending insecurity, May Canady (Angela Bettis) is a twenty-eight-year-old woman who has suffered from a troubled childhood.

Having always had trouble making friends, she is finally able to befriend a lesbian colleague, Polly (Anna Faris), and a handsome mechanic, Adam (Jeremy Sisto).

Before long, she spoils the friendship when her oddities brim to the surface. May descends into utter madness and decides to build a new friend using human body parts. Will bits and pieces of her friends be used in the creation?

Bettis is a goldmine in the central role and provides a healthy dose of sympathy and creepiness. Many film characters have been outright disturbing in cinematic history, but May is wounded and victimized so we, as viewers, want to see her win out for once.

All May wants is a friend and, especially with Adam, we root for her to find true love.

May is like a combination of Carrie and Frankenstein.

Adam, while handsome, is also weird, and a good mate for May. He introduces her to a bizarre movie in which two characters embark on a romantic picnic and then eat each other. Adam reveals that he created the film for a college project.

This impresses May- finally, she has a soulmate! She quickly ruins the moment by biting his lip, turning him off, and destroying her mounting confidence.

McKee is successful at making the film flow with precision and good pacing. Many rookie directors seem overwhelmed by a major motion picture undertaking, perhaps feeling more comfortable with short films. McKee proves he knows his stuff with an elegant and icy atmosphere that is just perfect for this type of film.

May is a quick one hour and thirty-three minutes, which is all that is needed to make its mark.

The final thirty minutes is the best part as the shit hits the fan in a big way. McKee’s choice to use the holiday of Halloween night as the backdrop is both obvious and ingenious.

May is not only ignored by Adam, but she learns he has a new girlfriend. To add insult to injury, Polly also finds love with their new girlfriend Ambrosia.

May feels isolated, finally snapping when she is ignored by her cat. She goes on a rampage and hacks up not only her friends but her eye.

May is a clever and atmospheric horror/thriller film with bursts of creativity and good-flowing storytelling. McKee may not always use originality and borrows heavily from other genre films, but he creates a nice blueprint of what his talents may lead to.

The film leaves the viewer unnerved and aghast, but isn’t that the point of a good horror film?

May (2003) could disappear over time but provides a worthy dedication to the horror genre.

1408-2007

1408-2007

Director Mikael Hafstrom

Starring John Cusack, Samuel L. Jackson

Scott’s Review #983

Reviewed January 23, 2020

Grade: C+

A bundle of film adaptations of Stephen King novels has been birthed over the years. 1408 (2007) is one of many and while suspenseful, the project might have been better served as a quick fifty-minute episodic television event rather than a big-screen effort.

The content seems displaced and disjointed, stretched too thin.

Nonetheless, big stars like John Cusack and Samuel L. Jackson provide some stamina to a film that slowly teeters into nonsense and a confusing conclusion.

Based on Stephen King’s 1999 short story of the same name, the film follows Mike Enslin (Cusack), an author who investigates allegedly haunted houses, and rents the titular room 1408 at the Dolphin, a New York City hotel, to see what all the fuss is about.

Although skeptical of the paranormal, he is soon unable to leave the room as he experiences bizarre events.

The hotel manager, Gerald Owen (Jackson) attempts to convince Mike not to inhabit the notorious room, and intriguing is why?

The film has key success when it focuses on the atmospheric and the tense moments. The lighting and the camera techniques elicit a closed-in and claustrophobic aura because the set is mostly a hotel room.

The use of psychological tension works better than a slice-’em, dice-’em approach.

During Mike’s examination of his room, the clock radio suddenly starts playing “We’ve Only Just Begun”, a hit song by The Carpenters. Mike assumes that Olin is pulling a prank to scare him.

At 8:07, the song plays again, and the clock’s digital display changes to a countdown starting from “60:00.”

This is creepy, and the viewer is intrigued by what will happen next.

The window slams down and wounds Mike’s hand. He begins to see ghosts of the room’s past victims, followed by flashbacks of his dead daughter Katie, and his sick father. This catapults Mike into terror and he attempts to escape the room, fearing for his life.

He is unsuccessful in his escape and the room appears to have him prisoner until his wife, Lily (Mary McCormack) comes to the rescue.

What does Olin have to do with the events? Is Lily sinister or benevolent?

When Mike is out of the hotel room the film falls apart. Containing too many weird circumstances to make much sense- a surfing event on the beach, a Molotov cocktail, a fire alarm, and a return to the hotel room spin the viewer in too many directions as a hallucinogenic experience is created.

Before long the viewer will stop caring. I know I did. On paper, these oddities sound intriguing, but they did not translate to screen well.

Hafstrom directs the activity adequately and uses actors that viewers are familiar with, adding to the credibility. With fewer talents or unknowns, the film may have felt low-budget or independent, and I think the film, while not great, needs these actors to add professionalism.

The star is naturally Cusack, who enjoys the most screen time as a man who only believes what his eyes and ears tell him, and not the silliness of spirits and ghosts. The actor possesses an offbeat look which adds to the film.

From a storyline perspective, 1408 never really catches fire. The film is not pitiful, nor is it a great adaptation of a Stephen King novel. The novel is hardly a household name, which does the film a few favors.

The result is fair to middling, with a promising first half followed by a dour second. 1408 (2007) will be forgotten five years after its release.

The Reptile-1966

The Reptile-1966

Director John Gilling

Starring Ray Barrett, Jennifer Daniel

Scott’s Review #978

Reviewed January 10, 2020

Grade: B

Hammer horror film productions offer treats to be enjoyed. The budgets are always small, adding to the mystique, fun, and wonderment of what can be done.

Impressive is how creative they get with a shoestring budget.

The Reptile (1966) is an excellent film with enough murder and intrigue to satisfy, though it has many plot holes and illogical sequences.

The British class and murky locales are fantastic.

Set in Cornwall, England, events begin in a macabre way when a middle-aged bachelor hears noises coming from a nearby estate. When he investigates, he is bitten by a demonic figure and rapidly develops the “Black Death,” which kills him.

Many locals succumb to a similar fate. The bachelor’s brother, Harry Spalding (Ray Barrett), inherits his brother’s cottage and moves in despite the warnings of the resident tavern owner, Tom (Michael Ripper). Tom is the only one of the townspeople to befriend Harry and his wife, Valerie (Jennifer Daniel).

Meanwhile, the sinister Dr. Franklyn (Noel Willman), the owner of the nearby estate, is the only resident near the cottage. He lives with his daughter Anna (Jacqueline Pearce). The Doctor treats his daughter with contempt as she is attended to by a silent servant (Marne Maitland).

When Anna asks Valerie for help, Valerie and Harry are led to the estate, where dire events occur. But could this be a trap?

The setting of the coastal town is well created, and scenes in cemeteries, par for the course with Hammer productions, add a good vibe. The cottage and the estate are well-manicured, and the film feels like a British gem.

Since the sets are low-budget, the exterior sequences add to The Reptile. Assumed is that the film was shot with a “day for night” technique, a trick used to simulate a night scene while filming in daylight. This makes for positive cinematography.

The film’s final thirty minutes are best when Harry and Valerie are invited to dinner at the Doctor’s estate. Banished to her bedroom for most of the evening, Anna emerges looking ravishing in an evening dress but is soon revealed to have been met with a curse, sheds her skin, and becomes a frightening reptile.

The servant has a hold over Anna and her father while a sweet black kitten comes into play.

The characters are interesting. Benevolent Harry and Valerie mix well with the dark and cynical Dr. Franklyn and the servant. Franklyn is irritable, and the servant, though he does not speak, is devious and riddled with mystery.

Ignoring warnings to flee the town and never return, the newlyweds refuse. Blissful in their new cottage and filled with the promise of fresh life, their spirit counterbalances their neighbors’, and when the characters intersect, the real fun begins.

The creature is a bit corny and hardly scary. The makeup, reportedly complex for actress Jacqueline Pearce, looks amateurish. The cover art makes the creature look much better than in the film, but budgetary limitations tightened things.

Kudos for introducing the female creature. It was tough to root for or against her, though, since we know little about why she went from gorgeous to evil.

From a plot perspective, the viewer is encouraged not to try too hard to figure out how circumstances relate. Why and how did Anna become cursed? Did the servant curse her, and why was he there? Is the group of caged animal creatures that Anna eats?

It is mentioned that Anna needs a hot environment—is the hot molten metal in the basement enough to keep her human? Many other inquiries could be made, but they don’t matter much.

The Reptile (1966) is worth a watch, especially for fans of classic Gothic horror. Although the cast is unfamiliar, the project would have been enhanced by adding Peter Cushing or Christopher Lee, mainstays of Hammer films, in either of the central male roles.

Still, the film succeeds, and the low budget creates a fabulous texture. The main appeal is that it is a good, fun horror film with little expectations.

Silent Night, Deadly Night-1984

Silent Night, Deadly Night-1984

Director Charles E. Sellier Jr.

Starring Robert Brian Wilson, Gilmer McCormick

Scott’s Review #974

Reviewed December 30, 2019

Grade: B

Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984) is a fun, holiday-themed horror/slasher flick that is cheery mayhem in the spirit of the season, and a worthy addition to any horror fan’s collection.

The film is best watched late at night for appropriate effect, and obvious to view around the holiday that it celebrates.

It would make a great companion piece to Black Christmas (1974), a superior film, but both contain eerily similar musical scores, the former updated with electronic beats for the 1980s.

The horror film was met with ridicule and protest upon release for the promotion of a killer Santa Claus, despite the story being slightly overreacted to and not interpreted correctly. The ‘real’ Santa Claus does not perform the slayings, but rather a mentally unstable young man dressed in the red suit does the dirty deeds.

Nonetheless, the film was unceremoniously yanked from theaters after parents expressed fear that their kids might be traumatized by the film. Silent Night, Deadly Night has graduated to cult-classic status and is entertaining, perhaps embracing its derision instead of running from it.

The action begins in rural Utah in 1971, as the Chapman family drives to a retirement home to see their catatonic grandfather. When left alone, the elder warns five-year-old Billy to fear Santa Claus, which his parents disbelieve.

On their way home, they stop along the roadside to help a man dressed as Santa Claus, whose car appears to have broken down. The man robs and kills the parents, sparing Billy and his brother from death. Three years later Billy and Ricky reside in an orphanage led by the sadistic Mother Superior, and a kindly nun, Sister Margaret (Gilmer McCormick).

Ten years later (present times), the now-grown Billy (Robert Brian Wilson) is benevolent and friendly, obtaining a job as a stock boy at a toy store with the help of Sister Margaret. As Christmas Eve approaches, Billy has flashbacks of his parent’s murders and later is forced to play Santa Claus for the Christmas party when a co-worker falls ill.

As the staff becomes inebriated, a female co-worker is nearly raped causing Billy to go berserk and kill both the assailant and the victim who blames Billy. He then spends the night prowling the area for victims he can stab or behead.

Fun is the name of the game with Silent Night, Deadly Night.

The film is to be enjoyed and is a macabre treat for slasher fans. The kills are respectable with the traditional methods used- an ax to the head and a bow and arrow death, along with more elaborate deaths like strangling with a chain of Christmas lights, and a bare-chested female victim being impaled on a moose head.

The highlight is the beheading of a mean teenage bully as he gleefully sleighs down a hill on a stolen sled.

Plenty of gratuitous bare chests (female) common in these types of films are in store for the lusty male viewer, but a nude male is glimpsed as well to make for some R-rated diversity.

Par for the course with slasher films made decades ago is the omission of cultural diversity. Not one Black, Latin, or Asian character is ever seen. The pure-as-snow Utah setting might be one justification.

If one were to attempt to analyze Silent Night, Deadly Night (not recommended) one can deduce a specific religious message or at least a questioning of Catholicism, specifically the harshness of Mother Superior and her interpretation of punishment being good and implemented in the name of god.

Or maybe she is just a sadistic character? In perfect contrast, Sister Margaret is loving, protective, and nurturing to the orphans.

Whatever the intention of the filmmakers, humor is the recipe as the strictness and rigidity are played for laughs.

Proper for any horror film, the final scene leaves room for a sequel. Indeed, there were four follow-up films made with the younger Ricky taking over as the serial killer.

In satisfying form, Ricky glares at Mother Superior and exclaims “Naughty!” before the credits roll. The unrated version of Silent Night, Deadly Night is the preferred version to watch.

Pull up the covers, light the fire, and kick back with a six-pack of Bud Lite, roast some marshmallows, and enjoy Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984) for what it is.

Bad acting, sins of the flesh, and a delightful holiday slaughter with unintentional (or intentional) humor and cliched characters make for robust enjoyment on a lightweight scale.

Midsommar-2019

Midsommar-2019

Director-Ari Aster

Starring-Florence Pugh, Jack Reynor

Scott’s Review #957

Reviewed November 11, 2019

Grade: B+

Director Ari Aster made a splash with his feature-length directorial debut, the horror-drama film, Hereditary in 2018. The film received enormous accolades, even considered for an Oscar nomination, and was quite bizarre and horrific. Aster follows up with Midsommar (2019), a film arguably even more freaky and ambitious.

The film is very slow-moving and foreboding, but finally reaches a macabre and perplexing climax. My initial reaction is the film is a fine wine with additional richness upon subsequent viewings.

The film quickly gets off to a creepy start in the United States as college student Dani Ardor (Florence Pugh) receives a cryptic email from her troubled sister. Her sister soon kills herself and her parents by filling the house with carbon monoxide fumes.

Dani is devastated and needs support from her distant boyfriend, Christian (Jack Reynor), an anthropology student. The couple continues to feel disconnected from each other as months go by.

Dani and Christian decide to join some friends at a midsummer festival in a remote Swedish village. One friend has relatives in the village and another decides to work on his thesis. What begins as a carefree holiday takes a devious turn when the villagers invite the group to partake in festivities that grow increasingly unnerving and viscerally disturbing.

Strange events begin to occur as the subsequent series of celebrations gets underway.

Any horror film that mixes pagan cults, folklore, and religion easily provides the creeps, and Midsommar successfully hybrids American culture with Swedish culture in frightening form. Much of the film takes place in a remote area, with sprawling sunny lands, and a deathly silent atmosphere.

The cheery locale has a peculiar California vibe and the Charles Manson era hairstyles are adorn by Swedish women. Uncertain is whether this was Aster’s intent or not.

I love how the students are intelligent and worldly, using their time in the village to learn and study. The traditional horror stereotype involving high school or college students is their desire to guzzle beer, party, have sex, and do little else.

Aster wisely makes his group intellectual and more studious than the norm. The students do partake in drugs, but this has more to do with the villagers having healing remedies and other sorts of herbal delicacies.

Midsommar contains many lengthy nude scenes, both male and female, the actors readily baring both their fronts and their rears. This is almost unheard of in American film, but Midsommar is a co-production between the United States and Sweden, providing more leeway in the nudity department.

When Christian is given a strong psychedelic and beds a virginal villager eager to mate, the poor chap winds up chased around the village in the buff. This occurs after he inseminates the girl as they are surrounded by nude female villagers cheering them on.

Confusing and left unclear are the motivations of the villagers. The point is made that nine human sacrifices must be made to rid the village of evil, but why is the evil there to begin with?

During a ritual it is revealed, in gruesome form, those elderly folks commit suicide at age seventy-two and their names were given to newborns.

The handsome Christian is a prime candidate to provide life, but why are the others killed? Were they lured intentionally and does their being American have anything to do with it? Was the intent all along to crown Dani May Queen or did she win the dancing competition?

The climax of the film ties back to the beginning portion only in terms of Dani’s and Christian’s relationship and her family’s deaths seem to have little to do with anything. Does Dani intend revenge on Christian or is she so drugged she knows not what she is doing? Will she remain in the village?

A film heavily influenced by The Wicker Man (1973), Midsommar (2019) has divided audiences based on common reviews. Some despise the film, calling it one of the worst ever seen. Others herald it as a work of art, an unsettling offering that provokes thought and provides a sinister feel.

I found an enormous amount of questions left unanswered and this may be a good thing. It only makes me want to see the film again or peel back the onion post-film to dissect the many layers Aster creates.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Cinematography

Dawn of the Dead-2004

Dawn of the Dead-2004

Director Zack Snyder

Starring Sarah Polley, Ving Rhames

Scott’s Review #956

Reviewed November 8, 2019

Grade: C+

Dawn of the Dead (2004) is a remake of the original horror-comedy-satire film by legendary George Romero. What the original provided in intrigue and concept is lacking in the much bloodier remake- the freshness is not there.

The film was made pre-television phenomenon The Walking Dead but watching it now with the zombie obsession in a steady decline, the film, while entertaining, feels tired and dated.

The film feels patterned after the successful and fresh 28 Days Later (2002).

Now set in Wisconsin (the original was in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), Ana (Sarah Polley), returns from a shift at the local hospital, where she works as a nurse. She soon learns that massive bulletins alert sudden zombie plague, where former human beings have turned into cannibalistic corpses.

Her husband a victim, Ana joins a small group of survivors at the local shopping mall and attempts to stay alive while being encircled by the creatures, and other not-so-nice people.

The main group includes a grizzled police sergeant, Kenneth (Ving Rhames), electronics salesman Michael, petty criminal Andre and his pregnant wife, Luda, and three guards, C.J., Bart, and Terry.  They are later joined by others who arrive via delivery truck.

The large group befriends another survivor, Andy, who is stranded in his gun store across the zombie-infested parking lot.

The rest of the film offs the characters one by one in traditional horror style, while the remaining few try to figure out an escape route.

The main problem with Dawn of the Dead is that the characters are not written well, making them either one-note or not particularly interesting, and quite stereotypical. Examples of this are the angry and defiant guards, who make trouble for the rest of the group for no other reason than as a weak plot device to create drama other than from the zombies.

Kenneth is an angry cop, a lone wolf type of character, who frequently postures and preaches. Again, there is no interesting reason behind his personality.

Finally, Steve is an oversexed playboy who keeps recordings of his sexual shenanigans for repeated viewings.

The character meant to root for is Ana. We sympathize with her for her husband’s gruesome death and her struggle to stay alive, so she is the film’s hero. Her character is likable and Polley is a worthy actress, but I wonder if a name star would have been better in this circumstance.

Polley did not last very long in the Hollywood world and this only makes the film feel more dated than it already does. Many viewers will not know who the actress is.

Another irritant is the decision to make the zombies move faster. Part of the beauty of the zombies is that they are slow and brooding, unable to think, just existing in a mummy-like haze. Suddenly, they are fast, making them tougher to flee from. This attempt at a modern approach by changing things up too much does not work at all.

Dawn of the Dead is not all dour.

Props must be given to the mall setting, updated for 2004 shopping inclusiveness. Trendy and timely stores are added, and it feels like a mall of its time. This is one aspect of the film that works and feels interesting.

Eagle-eyed viewers may spot some of their favorite stores from this decade.

The strongest part of an otherwise mediocre film is the brilliant incorporation of the heavy-metal band Disturbed’s aggressive song “Down with the Sickness” from 1999. The song is incorporated over the stylistic end credits and a summary of what happens to the survivors is provided over the lyrically brutal song.

Unfortunately, it is at the very ending of the film where it finally hits a home run.

Since this is a remake it is impossible not to compare it to the 1978 version in many ways. The characters in the original had more salt and a romance added a bit of complexity. The original also felt fun whereas the 2004 version seems hardened and angry.

The originality that made the original fresh is lacking in this retread, which limits the unique social context and thought provocation that the original contained.

With little reason to watch Dawn of the Dead (2004), unless it was still 2004, the original 1978 Romero version is far superior. A fun tip might be to watch them in sequence (I did!) to notice differences in style and pacing and for general comparison sake.

The final musical score is a win, but much of the rest is dull and dated.

Don’t Look in the Basement-1973

Don’t Look in the Basement-1973

Director S.F. Brownrigg

Starring Anne MacAdams, Rosie Holotik

Scott’s Review #954

Reviewed November 5, 2019

Grade: B

A film that is so low-budget that it strongly resembles the quality of independent master John Waters films, Don’t Look in the Basement (1973) has very low production values. It makes Waters’s films look like grandiose budget fests.

It contains a campy and cheap quality that adds to the fun of watching. With a videotaped look and marginal acting, the film is perfect for a late-night indulgence, but little more.

Director S.F. Brownrigg, with screenwriter, Tim Pope, brought this project to life. Also named The Forgotten and Death Ward #13, Don’t Look in the Basement is the title that works best and conjures up the most intrigue.

The story revolves around a collection of odd hospital inmates running the asylum while a series of mishaps occur.

Stephens Sanitarium is a secluded mental health facility in a remote area run by the quirky Dr. Stephens. The good doctor believes that the secret to curing his crazy group of loons is to allow them to express themselves, acting out their realities in hopes of solving their problems.

Stephens and an elderly nurse are both killed separately, he is accidentally hacked to bits by an ax, and she has her head crushed by a female patient who thinks her baby (a doll) is being taken from her.

Dr. Geraldine Masters (Anne MacAdams) is left to run the facility and greets a new nurse, the sexy Charlotte (Rosie Holotik) when she arrives from out of town expecting a job.

Charlotte encounters all the inmates before strange events begin to occur like an older patient having her tongue cut out, and a visiting telephone repairman being murdered.

One could speculate that Don’t Look in the Basement influenced independent treats such as Supervixens (1975), High Anxiety (1977), or the plethora of slasher films soon to be on the horizon, but this may be wishful thinking.

A few choice scenes seem like quick blueprints for these films to follow but in an amateurish way.

Despite the film being of the horror genre category, several scenes, mostly of Charlotte and Geraldine talking in an office, seemingly carved from a daytime soap opera, which was popular in those days.

The long dialogue, and almost throwaway scenes, do not further the plot much, and it’s the occasional macabre death scene that achieves the most reaction.

Don’t Look in the Basement adds a big twist that is not difficult to figure out once all the pieces are presented to the viewer. The foreboding title ultimately underwhelms as this anticipated big secret barely comes to fruition.

As the players are offed one by one the implausible conclusion reaches a climax and the viewer will ruminate that the early stages of the film are superior to the ending.

The poor pacing and meandering story made me tune out from time to time. Still, the film is fun and a good, old-fashioned camp-goofy good time.

The characters are completely over-the-top in the best possible way. A female nymphomaniac who, it is relayed, has been left by any man she has ever met and craves love and affection, is convinced that the repairman will marry her (they have only just met!) and has sex with his corpse.

A lobotomized black man only eats purple lollipops and has a heart of gold, while the ugly old woman, sans tongue, attempts to convey a secret message.

Don’t Look in the Basement (1973) is a marginal success because it does not take itself too seriously. This is both good and bad because the project takes on a juvenile quality that sometimes seems to be going for laughs more than for fright.

The acting is below par, but somehow the characters retain enough interest to warrant a recommendation, but only for those with interest in the genre.

Hostel-2006

Hostel-2006

Director Eli Roth

Starring Jay Hernandez, Derek Richardson

Scott’s Review #951

Reviewed October 24, 2019

Grade: A-

During the early 2000’s the traditional horror genre catapulted into a sub-genre commonly referred to as “torture porn” led by the Saw franchise, debuting in 2004.

Hostel (2006) takes note and creates a terrifying production that holds up arguably the best in the bunch.

With Quentin Tarantino serving as producer and Eli Roth (Cabin Fever-2002) as the writer and director chair, one knows something memorable is in store.

The film is hardly everyone’s cup of tea but a delight for horror fanatics.

American college students Paxton (Jay Hernandez) and Josh (Derek Richardson) travel across Europe seeking adventure and dalliances. They are advised to visit Slovakia, where they are told the women are beautiful, picking up a new Icelandic acquaintance, Oli, along the way.

They encounter a strange Dutch businessman, a pack of rebellious street kids, two Asian girls, and two gorgeous European women, Natalya and Svetlana, as they travel.

When Oli disappears, and Paxton and Josh are drugged by the girls, events turn gruesome as the young men find themselves in a horrific remote dungeon facility where tourists are accosted and sold to willing buyers who brutalize and experiment on the victims.

Paxton must figure out a way to escape his peril and try to save any of the others before it is too late.

Hostel portrays the loneliness and insecurity of traveling abroad successfully as confusion and disorientation are commonalities that anyone who has traveled to a foreign country can relate to. The country of Slovakia (as an aside the film was shot in the Czech Republic) looks eerie and desolate with a quiet and cold tone.

As the group is preyed upon by a mysterious organization that tortures and kills kidnapped tourists, the thought and realism this conjures up adds to the fright.

In a unique measure, Roth turns the traditional gender stereotypes upside down. Based on an unbalanced scale females are killed much more often in horror films than males are. A refreshing point is the three principles are males, not females and we wonder which ones will “get theirs” and how.

Similarities thereby abound with Halloween (1978) when the trio were females and audiences watched their daytime adventures while salivating at the thought of the antics that would transpire when darkness finally falls.

Hostel kicks into high gear during the final thirty minutes once the blood-letting begins to take place. The dark and dingy dungeon is laden with corpses, severed limbs, and blood.

A melancholy scene occurs when one character, alive yet pretending to be dead, is affixed in a position where he must stare into the dead eyes of his friend. In another scene, one character must cut off the dangling eyeball of another so that they can escape the dungeon.

The scenes have equal power in different ways.

A slight irritant to Hostel is the prevalence of homophobia throughout the film. When the guys get into a scuffle with a long-haired bar patron and use a homophobic slur or a scene in which Paxton states “that’s so gay” as a negative seems unnecessary.

Is this to make the main characters less sympathetic or for the viewer to hope that they suffer a horrible fate? Or is Roth just known for homophobia?

In 2006 the LGBT community was becoming prominent in the film, so the inclusion is off-putting and out of line.

Hostel (2006) remains a superlative horror film that is a shock-fest and is still one of the best of its decade. The gruesome scenes still resonate well and watching the film more than a decade later it feels as fresh as when released with only the homophobic slurs needing to be removed.

Influence by Tarantino is always a fine element and his stamp is all over the film.

Followed by two sub-par sequels that tread the same blueprint of European travels gone deadly.

Ma-2019

Ma-2019

Director-Tate Taylor

Starring-Octavia Spencer, Diana Silvers

Scott’s Review #949

Reviewed October 22, 2019

Grade: B+

Marketed as a slasher film based on the trailers, Ma (2019) impressed me immensely as my expectations of a standard horror film were superseded by a more complex, perfectly-paced psychological thriller.

A fantastic performance by Octavia Spencer and dare I mention an Oscar-worthy one if this were a different type of film, the actress effortlessly brings a vulnerability to a not-so-easy role to play.

The finale is disappointing, and the film throws in a few too many stereotypes but is a very good effort.

Set somewhere in remote Ohio, but looking more like the southern United States, teenager Maggie Thomson (Diana Silvers) and her mom Erica (Juliette Lewis) return to Erica’s hometown after her marriage fails.

Reduced to a job as a cocktail waitress at a local casino, she encourages Maggie to make friends. Maggie falls into the popular crowd as Erica reconnects with high-school friends who are mostly the parents of Maggie’s new friends.

Sue Ann (Spencer) bonds with the cool kids by purchasing them booze and holding parties in her basement much to the displeasure of the parents.

The audience soon knows that something is not right with Sue Ann. She forbids the kids from ever venturing to her upstairs and slowly develops a needy attachment to the teens. Flashbacks begin to emerge as clues to her connection to the other parents and her plot for revenge.

The incorporation of a place in the house to avoid is a common horror gimmick that always works well. Inevitably, someone will venture to that area of the house and a secret is revealed. Ma is no different in this regard.

How wonderful to see more diversity, and specifically among the African-American population, represented in the horror genre. Typically, other than at best being cast as a best friend or in small supporting roles, the horror genre has been an all-white affair.

Thanks to Get Out (2017) and Us (2019) horror films have recently included all-black casts and have been tremendous hits. Let’s hold out hope that the Asian, Latino, and LGBTQ communities will receive more inclusion and bring freshness to a key cinematic genre.

The film belongs to Spencer.

The Oscar-winning actress must have had a fun time with this role and gets to let loose during many scenes. She goes from coquettish to maniacal, sometimes within the same scene, with flawless precision and gutsy acting decisions.

My favorite Sue Ann is the unhinged one as she slyly threatens to cut one male character’s genitalia off. She smirks and uses her large, expression-filled eyes to her advantage. Psycho has never looked so good!

The climax, so important in horror or thrillers, to follow through and capitalize on the build-up, ultimately fails in Ma. Once the big reveal surfaces and a childhood prank is exposed, the trick hardly seems worthy of a killing bonanza.

A mousy Sue Ann performed fellatio on a nerd instead of her crush. Even those involved on the outskirts are blamed and waiting twenty years to exact revenge on her tormentors (most of whom have repented) doesn’t seem plausible.

Ma (2019) contains a hefty cast of stalwarts but it’s Spencer who brings the sometimes-generic material and trivial conclusion to crackling life with her brilliant portrayal of a damaged woman.

Allison Janney, Lewis, and others add respectability when the film teeters too close to mediocrity with its teen character cliches, but the film excels when it focuses on a character-rich story and unexpected plot points.

Child’s Play-2019

Child’s Play-2019

Director-Lars Klevberg

Starring-Aubrey Plaza, Mark Hamill

Scott’s Review #948

Reviewed October 17, 2019

Grade: B

In the cinematic genre of horror, when a successful franchise has been dormant for a period it is an inevitability that sooner or later a reboot will be in the offerings.

Child’s Play (2019) resurrects the series of films popular in the late 1980s and early 1990s with a modern stamp.

The film is formulaic but adds a bit of macabre dark humor that lifts it above mediocrity, but the freshness turns too silly in the final act and neither the film nor the killer is scary.

Kaslan Corporation has launched a successful new global product called Buddi, a revolutionary line of high-tech dolls designed to be human-like companions to their owners, learning from their surroundings and acting accordingly.

Buddi dolls can also connect to and operate other Kaslan products, quickly becoming a phenomenon for kids worldwide. A disgruntled employee tweaks one of the dolls to turn sinister and then commits suicide.

Single mom Karen Barclay (Aubrey Plaza) works as a retail clerk in Chicago raising a thirteen-year-old son named Andy (Gabriel Bateman), who wears a hearing aid. New to the area he struggles to make friends, so Karen takes the defective doll from her store as a substitute friend and picks me up for her son.

As Andy makes acquaintances within the building and takes a disliking to Karen’s new beau Shane (David Lewis), Buddi names himself Chucky and seeks vengeance against those surrounding Andy, eventually turning on the boy.

Child’s Play takes a modernized approach by making the new Chucky a more high-tech doll, much advanced to the original Chucky from the 1988 debut.

2019 Chucky is creepier and more life-like than the original Chucky which provides the film with a fresh look rather than merely a retread of the 1980s.

Set in present times the film feels relevant and glossy. New Chucky is more human than old Chucky with more capabilities and room for thought and deduction making him more devious.

A treat for Star Wars (1977) fans and any fan of cinema history is the inclusion of Mark Hamill as the voice of Chucky. While Hamill’s voice is not sinister nor particularly distinguishable to the naked ear, the star power adds fun and familiarity, a throwback and ode to film lore.

Hamill’s voice is pleasant and kind which adds a foreboding and sinister quality.

The film has some clever moments and bits of chilling dark humor that make it a fun experience. When Shane becomes the first victim of Chucky’s wrath and meets a dire fate at the hands of a tiller while hanging Christmas lights, he is beheaded and Chucky leaves the head in a disgusted Andy’s room.

In hilarious and laugh-out-loud form, the head ends up is a wrapped Christmas present for Andy’s elderly neighbor Doreen who props it on her mantle until she can open it.

Bryan Tyree Henry, known for his prominent turns in Widows (2018) and the wonderful If Beale Street Could Talk (2018) adds comedy and a nice guy edge as Andy’s neighbor, Detective Mike Norris.

Plaza, like Karen, is given limited material and unable to shine in her role, not seeming old enough nor motherly enough to add much realism. A big fan of the actress, she is more talented than this part allows her to be.

The film misfires with the cliched misunderstandings and incorrect assumptions that Andy is responsible for the deaths Chucky caused.  Andy’s two apartment buddies are caricatures, and the big finale set inside the retail store is disappointing.

Chucky brilliantly hacks the Buddi toys on the shelves and chaos ensues as parents and children are massacred as a stampede tries to escape the store. The scene does not work as well as a climax should.

Sticking closely to script and offering a predictable formula film the 1988 film Child’s Play is remade in 2019 with added star power. Familiar faces (and voices) Plaza, Henry, and Hamill rise the film slightly above B-movie status, though the dumb finale made me tune out a bit after the main kills were over.

I doubt the film performed well enough at the box office to secure the known actor’s returns and hopefully, this will be a one-and-done project.

IT: Chapter Two-2019

IT: Chapter Two- 2019

Director-Andres Muschietti

Starring-James McAvoy, Jessica Chastain, Bill Hader

Scott’s Review #939

Reviewed September 11, 2019

Grade: B+

A companion piece to the first chapter, simply named It (2017), and an adaptation of the famous and chilling 1986 novel by horror novelist, Stephen King, It: Chapter Two (2019) is a successful culmination of the vast story and will please many fans.

A box-office hit mixing straight-ahead horror with the supernatural, and a tad of adventure mixed in, the film is to be appreciated in many ways, though I slightly prefer the first chapter by measure.

Set in present times (2016), twenty-seven years after the first film took place, the Losers’ Club kids are now nearing middle-age, in their forties.

The most prominent characters in the group, Beverly Marsh (Jessica Chastain), Bill Denbrough (James McAvoy), and Richie Tozier (Bill Hader) are summoned by childhood chum Mike Hanlon, to return to the sleepy town of Derry, Maine after a series of murders begin at the summer carnival. Each of them except for Mike has fled the small town and found success in bustling cities, living prosperous lives.

Because of a promise made as kids, the entire group reunites except for Stanley Uris, who chooses to fatally slit his wrists in a bathtub rather than return and face evil Pennywise the Clown (Bill Skarsgard).

The six members wrestle with their demons and past mistakes while Pennywise takes the form of human beings and objects to terrorize the group, providing imagined and frenzied scares while they scramble to perform a Native American ritual to destroy the beast.

It is difficult to write a successful review of It: Chapter Two as merely a stand-alone film since the two chapters are meant to be one cohesive long film.

Filmed at the same time the pacing and the continuity are what make the experience an enjoyable one. Key is the interspersing of many scenes as a hybrid of childhood and adult sequences which gives the film a cohesive package.

This style is a treat for viewers having seen the first chapter two years ago. After the hoopla dies down, patient fans would do well to watch both chapters in sequence in back-to-back sittings for an undoubtedly pleasant experience.

Director Andres Muschietti wisely places focus on the characters so that the film is character-driven rather than plot-driven, a risk with anything in the horror genre.

Each of the six adults resembles the six kids in physical appearance which makes the story believable. A major score is a focus on each character individually, both in present times and in the past. Each faces insecurity, guilt, or mistakes making them complex.

At a running time of two hours and forty-nine minutes the film can take its time with character exploration and depth.

A nice add-on and deviating slightly from the King novel are a modern LGBTQ presence. It is implied (though I admittedly missed this when I saw the film) that Richie (Hader) is either gay or wrestling with his sexuality.

The pivotal final scenes depict Richie’s undying love for his lifelong friend Eddie as one saves the other’s life only to sacrifice his own. The fact that the love is unrequited or unrealized is both sad and heartbreaking.

The gay-bashing opening sequence of Adrian Mellon and his boyfriend is quite the difficult watch as is the lack of any comeuppance for their perpetrators, but the scene is true to King’s novel.

It is also a jarring reminder that in 2019, small towns are not always the safest place for the LGBTQ community as far too often small towns breed small minds.

The film could contain more jumps and scares than it does and teeters a bit too long in the overall running time. While the focus on the character is great, the final climax and the battle with Pennywise is a slight letdown and feels predictable.

The film is not scary in terms of horror but does have nice special effects and visual razzle-dazzle, especially concerning Pennywise. The creepy clown is less scary than in the first chapter but perhaps this is due to becoming more familiar with him.

A treat for eagle-eyed fans is the cameo appearance by legendary author Stephen King. As a cantankerous pawn shop owner, he sells Bill the relic bicycle he had enjoyed in his youth.

For bonus points, Muschietti treats fans to a scene including filmmaker Peter Bogdanovich, who cameos as the director of the film based on Bill’s novel.

It: Chapter Two (2019) provides good entertainment and will please fans of the horror genre and the famous author since the film is very true to the novel.

As a modern horror experience, the film is a solid win though not without slight missteps. Superior in depth and character development to most films in the same vein, it is to be enjoyed and appreciated.

The Curse of La Llorona-2019

The Curse of La Llorona-2019

Director-Michael Chaves

Starring-Linda Cardellini

Scott’s Review #937

Reviewed August 29, 2019

Grade: C+

The Curse of La Llorona (2019) is a modern-day horror flick that possesses all the standard and expected trimmings that a genre film of this ilk usually has.

The story is left undeveloped with many possibilities unexplored in favor of a by-the-numbers experience. Linda Cardellini, a wonderful actress, above the material she is given, does her best to spin straw into gold but comes up empty-handed.

It is the sixth installment in The Conjuring Universe franchise.

The film does have jumps and frights galore and a creepy ghost/spirit character that is scary, but more was expected from this film which left me ultimately disappointed.

First-time director Michael Chaves is a novice, so a bit of leniency should be given as he develops a limited product, but he could have a strong future ahead of him if he works on story elements rather than focus on merely scare tactics.

In 1673 Mexico, a family happily plays in a field when one of the boys suddenly witnesses his mother drowning his brother, soon suffering the same fate.

This incident becomes part of Mexican folklore and is subsequently feared by many. In present times (1973), caseworker Anna (Cardellini) is sent to investigate a woman who has locked her two sons in a room. Despite the woman’s claims that she is trying to save their lives, Anna brings them into police custody.

When the boys are later found drowned, the woman curses Anna, whose two young children are now in danger.

The positives are that Chaves makes a competent film. It is not bad and provides a level of familiarity, creaking doors, cracking mirrors, an evil spirit named “The Weeping Woman”, are good and provide a scare or two at just the right moments.

Characters frequently see the spirit through a reflection and since the film is set almost completely at night, this tactic is successful.

Cardellini, garnering recent fame for her role in the Oscar-winning film Green Book (2018), undoubtedly signed on for The Curse of La Llorona before all the Oscar wins.

The actress gives it to her all but can hardly save the film, though she does provide the professionalism that raises the film above a terrible experience. Not nearly enough praise will be given to the young child actors playing Anna’s kids.

Largely one-note and lacking any evident experience, ironically, they mirror Chaves’s own inexperience. They react to the scenes as they are directed but never add any depth or authenticity to their performances.

Besides Cardellini and the horror elements, The Curse of La Llorona lacks much shine or substance. The plot and characters are forgettable, and the viewer is left shrugging his or her shoulders once the film concludes, largely forgetting the production thirty minutes later.

The story, based on folklore, is weak.

The audience is expected to believe the spirit killed her own children and now roams the earth looking for other sacrificial pairs of children so that she may bring hers back from the dead?

In one perplexing sequence, the Weeping Woman softens when looking at Anna’s kids, her demonic face reveals how she once was a beautiful woman. She suddenly changes course and reverts to the evil spirit she had been.

Granted the special effects are impressive, but this is one example of a missed opportunity. Why couldn’t we be given a meatier backstory of the motivations of the woman?

Other misses are the 1970’s Los Angeles time-period- a feathered hairstyle and tight sweater worn by Anna, a clip of an old television show, and a car or two overlooking the City of Angels hardly appreciates the decade or the metropolis.

Especially laughable are the modern hairstyles and looks of the children, including the kid from the seventeenth century.

Any connection to The Conjuring (2013) or Annabelle (2014) is limited as one character (Father Perez) appearing briefly holding the Annabelle doll barely warrants mention.

The Curse of La Llorona (2019) may only be a blueprint of what director Michael Chaves can build on in his career, and a bright future for him is not out of the question.

Building on The Conjuring franchise is a good place to start with a certain audience sure to see this film. He ought to take his basics and create films with more depth, character development, and twists and turns.

Pet Sematary-2019

Pet Sematary-2019

Director-Kevin Kolsch, Dennis Widmyer

Starring-Jason Clarke, John Lithgow

Scott’s Review #923

Reviewed July 26, 2019

Grade: B

In the age of the movie remake, especially within the horror genre, it was only a matter of time before Pet Sematary, first made in 1989, would resurface with its fangs bared.

Paramount Pictures offers up Pet Sematary (2019), a by-the-numbers affair perfect for viewing on a late Saturday night. It is an improvement over the disappointing ’89 version but hardly recreates the genre, feeling more like a remake than offering much in the way of new story-telling or frightening effects.

The conclusion is rather disappointing offering a hybrid of slasher meets zombie.

To compare either film to the chilling and suspenseful page-turner written by esteemed novelist Stephen King would be ridiculous. The book is a quick read that will leave its reader breathless and scared, perhaps even fearing their pets, so the bar is set way too high for a cinematic offering to match up with.

The book delves much more into the feelings and emotions of all the principal characters, something that is severely limited with the film.

The Creed family, Louis (Jason Clarke), Rachel (Amy Seimetz), and children Ellie and Gage move from bustling Boston, Massachusetts, to rural Maine to allow Louis the opportunity to practice medicine at a university hospital.

Their friendly neighbor Jud Crandall (John Lithgow) befriends Ellie after she stumbles across a funeral procession of children taking a deceased dog to a cemetery called Pet Sematary. He warns her and Rachel that the woods are dangerous. When tragedy strikes the family, the cemetery unleashes a supernatural force contained in an ancient burial ground that sits beside it.

The first half of the film is superior to the second as the build-up offers more perilous moments than when all hell breaks loose. Mysterious is when an accident victim in Louis’s care dies and begins to show up in his visions warning him of something sinister.

The victim is mangled and bloody and quite frightening are these foreboding scenes. When a curious Ellie traipses throughout the woods with curious wonderment the audience is nervous about what (or who) she might stumble upon.

The film also gets props for the suspenseful birthday party scene that ends in a grisly death. The scene begins cheerily with lively party music and festive balloons amid a warm afternoon in summery Maine.

In a clear example of foreshadowing, earlier in the film, Louis curses the truck drivers that drive at reckless speed past his house. Excitedly running after their cat named Church, Ellie and Gage pay no attention to the looming truck with the texting driver until it is too late.

The scene drips with good terror.

After one family member is struck down by the speeding tractor-trailer the predictability surfaces. Jud has already warned Louis that “sometimes dead is better”, but we know Louis will surrender to temptation out of desperation and tempt the bad spirits.

When the once dead character returns with a droopy eye and calm deviousness, the film becomes a standard slasher film and is not as compelling.

The final thirty minutes feel very rushed as if the careful pacing of the buildup is all for naught. As in most horror films, now deemed a cliche, the last sequence allows for a sequel if box-office profits are hefty enough. I do not recall a similar ending in the chilling novel or any reference to the family living out their days as a family of the undead.

The obvious attempt at a zombie reference was unsatisfying and much different from what I expected.

From a casting point of view, Jason Clarke (usually cast in supporting roles) gives a strong performance as the main character. He is a good father figure and provides charisma to the film. Well-mannered but also somewhat outdoorsy and a “regular joe” he is intelligent and humorous with the kids.

The child actors are fine but hardly the main attraction and Seimetz as the mother, Rachel, is not the best casting choice. She plays the challenging role much too brooding and angry for my taste, especially given she is written as the most sympathetic of all the characters.

Pet Sematary (2019) is a satisfactory horror offering with a solid first half that teeters into difficult to believe territory rather quickly. A stalwart veteran like Lithgow helps immensely, giving the film some respectability, and a child actor cast in a pivotal role is enough and doesn’t ruin the experience.

There is little reason to see the film a second time but recommended is to snuggle with the King novel for some good scares.

Eyes Without a Face-1960

Eyes Without a Face-1960

Director Georges Franju

Starring Pierre Brasseur, Alida Valli

Scott’s Review #922

Reviewed July 23, 2019

Grade: A

Eyes Without a Face (1960) is a macabre and twisted French-Italian horror film co-written and directed by Georges Franju. It is based on Jean Redon’s novel, which is the same name.

The film cover art (see above) is flawless and terrifying. It induces the creeps by only giving a glimpse, causing the recipient to be curious and attempt to analyze the meaning.

The film is nestled into a short one-hour and thirty-minute package that is time to scare the audience to death with many fantastic and gruesome elements, severely limiting the gore, which only adds to the horrific nature.

Because of its subject matter, the film was highly controversial in 1960 and was subsequently either loved or reviled by its audiences.

Eyes Without a Face is riveting because the audience empathizes with the characters and takes action to correct their wrongs despite the main character’s undeniable crazyness.

The complex emotions of guilt and obsession are commonalities, making it a layered and complex horror film that appears on many Top Ten genre lists.

The film is not for the faint of heart.

Doctor Genessier (Pierre Brassier) is a brilliant and successful physician who specializes in plastic surgery. After a vicious car accident that he is to blame for, he attempts to repair the ruined face of his daughter, Christiane (Edith Scob), a victim of the wreck.

But his plan to give his daughter her looks back involves kidnapping young girls and removing their faces. He is aided in his machinations by his assistant, Louise (Alida Valli), who kidnaps the young woman and helps him in the laboratory, acting as a surrogate mother to Christiane.

Louise aids Génessier partly because he helps restore her damaged face in events before the film begins.

Scob is the stand-out character, containing an innocent and quietly melancholy existence as she is the apparent victim of the story. Her defeated posture, while resiliently hopeful and demure, is complex for an actress to carry, and she defines grace and poise.

Brasseur and Valli each deliver the goods in different ways. Valli, haunting in her best horror effort Suspiria (1977), is mesmerized by her doctor and savior so that the relationship is almost cult-like.

Brasseur is strangely heroic, as he steals lives to save lives, so his character is extraordinarily complex.

The surgery scenes are chilling, featuring white, starchy uniforms worn by a doctor, assistant, and victim. The scenes could almost be mechanical tutorials offered to first-rate medical students with scholarly intentions. If this were not a horror film, the look would be documentary-style.

Genessier calmly cuts an entire circular length of his victim as a hint of blood slowly oozes down the sides of her face in an almost tender fashion.

The film, made in 1960, is not the 1980s slasher film image that encompasses non-horror film-goers’ preconceptions. It has a gorgeous texture.

The best scene occurs when one of Genessier’s victims, lying on a gurney, comes to and gazes at a figure leaning close to her. The camera turns to the figure, revealing a blurry but recognizable image of Christiane sans the face-like mask she usually wears throughout the film.

As the victim shrieks in horror, Christiane slowly backs away from her amid a feeling of pain and heartbreak, remembering how much of a freak she must appear to others. The scene is sad and grotesque at the same time.

Horror films often get bad raps, but poetic and stylized horror films are a diamond in the rough.

Eyes Without a Face (1960) achieves its place in the cinematic archives with brilliant black and white cinematography entrenched in a Gothic, chilling story with characters whose motivations can be dissected and studied long after the film ends.

This keeps the viewer thinking and deserves repeated viewings to capture all the gems it offers.

Witchfinder General-1968

Witchfinder General-1968

Director Michael Reeves

Starring Vincent Price, Ian Ogilvy, Hilary Dwyer

Scott’s Review #904

Reviewed May 31, 2019

Grade: B+

Witchfinder General (1968) is a macabre horror film that provides an enormous atmosphere amid a gruesome story centering around the theme of witch-hunting.

By the late 1960’s violence and bloodletting in cinema had become more lenient and acceptable so the film takes full advantage of the timing with an unusual amount of torture, cruelty, and brutality.

The mid-seventeenth-century English period is highly effective as is the ghastly religious angle, making for effective film making.

Vincent Price is delicious in any film he appears in, having amassed over one-hundred cinematic credits alone, to say nothing of his television appearances.

Practically trademarking his over-the-top comic wittiness and campy performances, his role in Witchfinder General may be his best yet as he plays the character straight and deadly serious.

This succeeds in making his character chilling and maybe the best role of his career despite numerous disputes with the director, Michael Reeves, over motivation.

During the English Civil War, Mathew Hopkins (Price) took advantage of the unrest in the land, profiting from witch-hunting. He travels from town to town accusing the unfortunate of witchcraft until they are mercilessly executed after which he is paid handsomely.

Matthew is assisted in the accusations and torments by John Stearne (Robert Russell) a man his equal in brutality. The knowledge that these two men were real-life historical figures makes the action even more difficult to watch.

When he arrests and tortures Father Lowes (Rupert Davies), Lowes’s niece’s fiancé (Ian Ogilvy) decides to put an end to Hopkins’s sleazy practices and goes on a quest to seek vengeance.

The mixture of a romantic love story as Richard Marshall (Ogilvy) and Sara (Hilary Dwyer) marry and a revenge tale as Marshall vows to destroy Hopkins is a nice combination as are the numerous outdoor scenes.

Witchfinder General has much going on and the pieces all come together.

The most horrific moments of the film come during the death scenes as the victims, who logical viewers can ascertain are innocent. The characters are merely perceived as peculiar, therefore deemed to be up to witchcraft, and do not stand much of a chance despite their endless pleas and cries.

Before they are murdered they are typically tortured until they ultimately confess to crimes out of desperation and perceived relief. The common mode of death is either hanging or burning to death.

In one sickening scene, victims are assumed to be witches if they can swim and then are subsequently burned at the stake; if they drown they are innocent, but of course die anyway.

One unfortunate victim has her hands and legs bound and drowns, followed by one of the witch hunters professing how her death was unfortunate because she was innocent all along.

In horror films, the most frightening situations are the ones that can conceivably occur in real-life whether it be a home-invasion, a psycho with a knife, or burning at the stake in the 1600s.

The fact that witch-hunting did happen is shocking and resoundingly makes Witchfinder General creepier especially given that most scenes take place in the daytime. Anyone can create a studio monster, but the realism of the events is the key to the film’s power.

As an aside, while watching the film I was keen to keep in mind how many countries still treat certain classes and groups of people differently, or even oppress them in the name of God.

Food for thought and an additional component that makes Witchfinder General relevant.

The story and the screenplay are not brilliant, nor do they necessarily need to be given the treasures existing among the elements. The writing is your basic villains getting their comeuppance with a love story thrown in- standard fare and adequate.

While pointing out some negatives is “Witchfinder General” the best title that Reeves could come up with, or anyone else for that matter? The title does not exactly roll off the tongue nor does the renamed United States release, The Conqueror Worm sound much better.

Witchfinder General (1968) is not an easy watch and the faint of heart may want to avoid this one, but the realism and the rich atmosphere make it a success.

The lit candles, an old castle, potent red and blue costumes, and one of the greatest horror legends of all time make this a must-watch among horror fans.

Taste of Fear-1961

Taste of Fear-1961

Director Seth Holt

Starring Susan Strasberg, Ronald Lewis

Scott’s Review #901

Reviewed May 21, 2019

Grade: A-

Though Taste of Fear (1961) is a Hammer Production, a British film company known for its heavy horror offerings, it plays more like an intense and chilling thriller with a Gothic, ghostly feel than a full-throttled horror display.

The title was changed for US marketing purposes to Scream of Fear, and neither the US nor the UK title quite works, lacking the appropriate pizzazz that the film warrants.

The result is a razor-edged spellbinder with marvelous cinematography and more than a few surprise twists.

The action gets off to an exciting start as a female body is suddenly discovered in the waters of coastal Italy; a young woman has taken her own life by drowning.

Soon after, a heiress who uses a wheelchair, Penny Appleby (Susan Strasberg), arrives at her father’s estate in the lavish French Riviera to bond with her new stepmother, Jane (Ann Todd), and await her father’s return from vacation.

It is explained that the deceased woman was a close friend of Penny’s.

Penny distrusts her stepmother immensely but is unsure why since the woman is more than accommodating during her stay.

Immediately, strange events begin to occur at a rapid rate, most notably seeing her father’s corpse in odd places around the house and the grounds. The body disappears when Penny calls for help, leaving the household members questioning her sanity and Penny starting to agree.

She befriends the handsome family chauffeur, Robert (Ronald Lewis), and the pair are determined to figure out what is happening.

Cleverly, the audience knows something is amiss but not what the entire puzzle will add to, which is an excellent part of the viewing pleasure. Director Seth Holt enjoys toying with his viewers, keeping them guessing at every dark turn.

The biggest questions are these: If Penny’s father is dead, where is the body being hidden? Who is responsible and why? Why does Jane leave the house for drives every night? What does the family doctor (Christopher Lee) do with the story?

The best visual aspect of Taste of Fear is the black-and-white cinematography, which adds foreboding and brooding elements throughout the film’s short running time of eighty minutes.

The grand estate with creepy nooks and crannies provides plenty of prop potential. A grand piano that seems to play by itself is pivotal to the story, as is a murky pool, shockingly deep and unkempt for such a residence. Finally, the mansion boathouse that may or may not contain lit candles takes center stage during the film.

The storytelling is quick-paced and robust, never dragging. Layers unfold as the story progresses, but the developments are necessary instead of overkill as the conclusion comes into view.

Assumptions about which character’s motivations are devious begin to unravel. The illustrious dialogue crackles with spunk, and by the time we figure out what is going on, we scratch our heads in disbelief, finally surrendering to the film’s manipulations.

Taste of Fear falters slightly when an attempt to make the story ultimately add up is pondered. Liberties must be taken happily so, as what could be deemed silly or superfluous instead results in thrilling fun.

Once or twice, I thought the setup was too contrived, but I just as quickly tabled the inquisition instead of choosing to revel in the story.

The more than adequate cast performs their roles with professionalism and energy, always careful to make the unbelievable believable. Any film starring the legendary Christopher Lee is worthy of praise, even if the actor only has a supporting role.

Justice is eventually served, though, as his character becomes central to the plot.

A fun fact is that Lee said, “Taste of Fear was the best film I was in that Hammer ever made. It had the best director, the best cast, and the best story.” Given the actor’s catalog of treasures, this is not to be easily dismissed.

A forgotten delight, Taste of Fear (1961), is a prime example of a film that does everything correctly.

It is an excellent story, Gothic gloominess, and a foray for Hammer Production company into the new psychological thriller genre. The piece is never over-the-top and is a production sure to impress Hitchcock himself.

Never Take Sweets from a Stranger-1960

Never Take Sweets from a Stranger-1960

Director Cyril Frankel

Starring Patrick Allen, Gwen Watford

Scott’s Review #900

Reviewed May 17, 2019

Grade: A

Never Take Sweets from a Stranger (modified to Never Take Candy from a Stranger in the US for marketing purposes) is a 1960 British film directed by Cyril Frankel and released by Hammer Film Productions.

The film contains brilliant cinematography and cerebral quality, and it is pretty daring for the time it was made. It combines a story of pedophilia with manipulations of the legal system, allowing those to get away with this most heinous crime because of their status.

Despite the production company name being marketed as a horror film, the film is more left-of-center than a traditional horror film.

The locale is a small, sleepy lakefront Canadian town that seems like an everyday US town. The Carter family (Peter, Sally, and their 9-year-old daughter Jean) has just moved there to give Peter a fantastic job opportunity as the school principal.

Jean confides to her parents that while playing in the woods, she and her friend Lucille went into the house of an elderly man. The man asked them to remove their clothes and dance naked for him in return for some candy, which they did.

Peter and Sally are appalled and decide to file a complaint. The elderly man is one of the wealthiest and most influential in the town, the respected Clarence Olderberry, Sr.

Jean’s experience is downplayed, and the town largely shuns the Carter family. As a trial against Olderberry commences, Jean is ridiculed on the stand and her story ripped to shreds by attorneys.

After Olderberry is acquitted, he pursues Jean and Lucille in the woods, eventually catching the girls during a harrowing lakefront chase and murdering Lucille. Jean escapes, and the truth is revealed to the shocked and devastated town.

Although the cast of Never Take Sweets from a Stranger is not a household name, each performs well.

As the parents, Patrick Allen and Gwen Watford are well-cast and believable. They are upstanding strangers in the town, wanting to protect their daughter without smothering.

As old man Olderberry, Felix Aylmer plays the role not as menacing but by providing glimpses of pain and sympathy. The audience is unclear whether the man has dementia or Alzheimer’s disease, perhaps not even knowing what he has done.

The black-and-white cinematography is gorgeous, surreal, and tremendously effective.

With ghostly tones, the film gets off to a mysterious and prominent start as we see Jean and Lucille casually playing in the woods, startled to glance up at a menacing mansion (perfect for a Hammer production) to see elderly Olderberry leering at them with binoculars.

The lakefront sequences and the chase through the woods are among the best at providing superior camera angles.

As Lucille talks Jean into entering Oldberry’s house, we presume she has done this before. She knows Oldberry will provide the girls with candy, but does she understand this comes at a price?

Immediately, there is a shred of doubt about the children’s innocence—ever so quickly. The film’s decision and Oldberry’s representation are pivotal in casting even the slightest doubt on the motivations or decisions of the main characters.

Comparisons to the brilliant The Night of the Hunter (1955) are rapid. Themes of child abuse, young children in front and center roles, a creepy lake with a prominent boat, and macabre adults are prevalent, at least to some degree, in both films.

Additionally, both films were shunned at the time of release, misunderstood, and later rediscovered, subsequently seen as treasures of brilliant filmmaking.  Measuring both films as tragedies is also apparent; each results in pain and sadness for the children involved.

Never Take Sweets from a Stranger (1960) was released decades ago. It took years for its brilliance to be recognized and appreciated, as it added admirable and thought-provoking nuances to the viewer.

The subtle qualities make this film a world of its own. Sadly, the best movies are often overlooked, marinating the flavorful juices rather than a sudden bombastic reaction.

1960, the world was not ready for this film, but it is remembered as a brave, disturbing, and relevant film offering.

Scream and Scream Again-1969

Scream and Scream Again-1969

Director Gordon Hessler

Starring Vincent Price, Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing

Scott’s Review #899

Reviewed May 16, 2019

Grade: B+

Any film that features horror heavyweights and great actors like Vincent Price, Christopher Lee, and Peter Cushing is well worth the price of admission for the name status alone. Each is a mainstay attraction in his own right and combined, results in an orgy of riches.

Scream and Scream Again (1969) sputters by limiting the on-screen interaction between the actors but after a reflective pause, I realize the picture is to be revered for its creativity and use of intersecting plotlines into a thrashing crescendo of a surprise ending.

The audience is offered three segments of the story, each periodically revisited as stand-alone segments that culminate into overlapping components.

An athletic runner trots along the streets of London suddenly suffering from an attack only to awaken in the hospital with no legs.

Elsewhere, a deadly intelligence operative reports back to his repressed Eastern European country only to murder his commanding officer with a deadly paralyzing hold.

Finally, a London detective investigates the brutal deaths of several young women in metropolitan nightclubs.

Cushing, reduced to merely a cameo-sized role as the ill-fated officer, is barely worth mentioning and adds little to the film besides appearing in it.

Lee, like Fremont, the head of Britain’s intelligence agency, plays a straight role with not much zest.

Price, with the meatiest role as a mysterious doctor specializing in limb replacement, can give anyone the creeps with his scowling and eerie mannerisms, but the film strikes out by wasting the talents of the other legendary actors.

The film is not at all what a fan of Hammer horror would expect especially based on the horror familiar cast and the gory-sounding title.

Heaping buckets of blood or ghoulish vampires are what was on the anticipated menu but that does not mean the film fails to deliver. It may not please a fan of traditional horror films since the genres of political espionage and science-fiction come heavily into play.

However, the fantastic and peculiar nightclub serial killer storyline will satisfy fans eager for a good kill or two.

My initial reaction to Scream and Scream Again was that of over-complicated writing and too much going on simultaneously, especially for a film of the said horror genre.

After the film concludes and the surprise ending is revealed I realized that the numerous tidbits are necessary to achieve the desired result and events will make the viewer ponder when the film ends.

Not to ruin the big reveal but the filmmakers borrow a healthy dose of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) in a more macabre way, naturally.

Fans of the 1960s British television series The Avengers will be pleased with Scream and Scream Again as a similar tone exists with both.

The distinctive musical soundtrack, trendy for the 1960s period works well, and the nightclub sequences and some of the detectives feel reminiscent of the show.

The feel of the film is not limited to an episodic television story but contains a similar style.

High British 1960s fashion is also prevalent and pleasing to the eye.

A couple of supporting characters strike a fascination in small and almost entirely non-verbal performances.

A sexy red-headed hospital nurse with superhuman powers and a penchant for removing limbs, combined with a brooding and mysterious serial killer provides dubious intrigue as to who the true characters are.

What is their motivation? Do they work for someone or something sinister? Questions like these will keep the viewer occupied and thirsty for an explanation.

Bizarrely, British film and television director Gordon Hessler crafts an implausible yet fascinating story that keeps the viewer guessing.

Featuring horror superstars Price, Cushing, and Lee would seem like an assured horror masterpiece but the star’s limited time on-screen brings the overall project down a notch.

Scream and Scream Again (1969) still achieves a good measure of worthy entertainment.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers-1956

Invasion of the Body Snatchers-1956

Director Don Siegel

Starring Kevin McCarthy, Dana Wynter

Scott’s Review #895

Reviewed May 8, 2019

Grade: B+

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), released during the mid-1950s, a time of post-War World II unity and prosperity in America where neighborhoods snuggled cheerily by the fireplaces with nary a care in the world, sought to make the public paranoid, and it worked.

Thanks to a foreboding premise, audiences got to ponder the possibilities of pod people cloning human beings and invading the planet, scaring the daylights out of the masses, and resonating with critics.

Playing like an extended episode of The Twilight Zone, and to the film’s credit, it preceded the television series. The film successfully achieves thought-provoking post-film dialogue at a brief one-hour and twenty-minute running time. It has been crowned with cult-classic status and similar creepy-themed genre films that blossomed during the 1950s.

Set in the fictional sunny California town of Santa Mira, the film gets off to an exciting start as we witness a screaming man in an emergency room attempting to be calmed by staff. The harried man claims to be a doctor and recounts, via flashbacks, the events leading up to the present day.

Our main character, Dr. Miles Bennell (Kevin McCarthy), and his ex-girlfriend Becky (Dana Wynter) team up after several patients report relatives acting robotic and strange.

When half-created bodies in pods are soon discovered, Miles and Becky know something is amiss in their town and race to figure out the mystery of the “pod people” while others turn into emotionless human-like beings.

The epidemic is caused by extraterrestrial life. The intention is for humanity to lose all emotions and a sense of individuality, creating a simplistic, stress-free world.

An interesting facet of Invasion of the Body Snatchers is how time has changed the reaction to the film. In 1956, the thought of aliens taking over the world seemed plausible and frightening since the man had not yet walked on the moon, and astronomy was a new venture.

The peaceful tranquility of the United States of America was in danger of being overtaken, the film exclaimed, and viewers fell for the scare tactics.

The film was created to be a political allegory, and boy did this sure work.

Decades later, the United States’ vibe is more integrated and flourishes with more diversity and acceptance of other cultures and beings. The country is also more chaotic, so the invasion of the “pod people” is less scary and perhaps even more embraced by those living in Malcontent.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers suffers from poor aging and a message rethink and teeters on feeling dated.

The acting is marginally good, if not spectacular, but it does not need to be Oscar-worthy to have the desired effect. The actors deliver their lines with dramatic gusto, successfully conveying suburban Americans’ troubled paranoia to audiences who will surely be on the edge of their seats as the drama unfolds.

The characters never think outside the box, only in straightforward terms, so the motivations are earnest.

The black and white cinematography is palpable yet subdued, and the lack of colors provides substance. While the 1950s was a wonderful time for film, it was also a less edgy time for cinema.

The 1960s brought fewer restrictions and more shocking elements, but Invasion of the Body Snatchers is compartmentalized, feeling more like a long episodic television thriller.

Double-billed with the equally frightening The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) would make for delicious 1950s science-fiction viewing.

I remain partial to the stunning, vibrantly colored 1978 remake, which features superior filmmaking and more layered production values. The original Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) holds its own and is a recommended watch.

Us-2019

Us-2019

Director-Jordan Peele

Starring-Lupita Nyong’o, Winston Duke

Scott’s Review #882

Reviewed April 1, 2019

Grade: A

Hot on the heels of his critically acclaimed and shockingly Oscar-nominated horror film Get Out (2017) Jordan Peele does it again with an even more thought-provoking creation.

Us (2019) combines classic horror elements with macabre and insightful qualities, crafting an ambitious project that can be dissected and discussed at length following the climactic and psychologically perplexing ending.

One thing is for sure; Peele has earned his spot among the most influential and elite directors circling Hollywood.

The film begins in 1986 as an event entitled Hands Across America- a publicity campaign encouraging people to hold hands to create a human chain to fight hunger and poverty- gripped the United States. Nine-year-old Adelaide Thomas goes on vacation to Santa Cruz, California with her parents only to wander off into a deserted house of mirrors.

When she meets her doppelganger, she is terrified beyond comprehension and requires therapy to resume a normal life.

Events return to the present day as Adelaide (now played by Lupita Nyong’o) is married to Gabe Wilson (Winston Duke) with two young children, Zora and Jason. Coaxed into a weekend getaway to none other than Santa Cruz to visit their wealthy friends Josh and Kitty Tyler (Tim Heidecker and Elisabeth Moss), Adelaide is apprehensive about the trip with a dreading sensation that her doppelganger is returning to get her.

When a strange family dressed in red jumpsuits appear on Wilson’s driveway the plot transforms into a bizarre direction especially since the family looks exactly like the Wilsons.

Us is extremely layered and reminiscent of the expression “peeling back the onion” in analysis and discussion possibilities. For starters, a character thought to be one person is another causing the audience to spin into confusion and not know who they were rooting for or not rooting for all along.

The astounding questions are endless and in Peele’s brilliant fashion can be asked at different times during the film. Why do the doppelgangers exist? What do they want? What do Hands Across America have to do with anything? What do the rabbits symbolize?

One gruesome scene and a favorite is the barbaric scene when the Tyler’s are suddenly attacked by their doppelgangers- home invasion style.

Reminiscent of the infamous Charles Manson murders, the family is slain quickly and mercilessly as the audience is left agape at the brutal slaughter. So much happens in this scene, first and foremost is the realization that there are more doppelgangers than we originally thought.

To lighten the mood a bit, Peele adds morbid comic relief as the family’s voice-controlled Siri system misunderstands the dying victim’s plea to call for police and mistakenly plays “F#@$ the Police” by N.W.A. instead.

Nyong’o has the most opportunities to showcase her acting ability by tackling two very different types of roles. As Adelaide, she is kind, capable, and your typical suburban Mom but as her doppelganger Red she is grizzled and desperate with a dry, throaty voice filled with pain and defeat.

At first thought a villain the audience eventually learns the complexities of Red’s story clearer and the Oscar winner delivers both parts with exceptional grace.

The supporting actors fill their characters with gusto with a mention going to Duke and Moss. Duke’s character of Gabe contains inept humor coming across as slightly incompetent and the typical goofball dad-type character.

Moss takes her one-note character of Kitty, a spoiled never made it as an actress whiner with a rich husband, and infuses naughty passion into her doppelganger. As she playfully applies lipstick while coquettishly watching herself in the mirror she soon gives the term “plastic surgery” a new definition as she curiously carves her face.

Peele delivers a treasure with Us (2019) and I salivate at the thought of the film is only the novice director’s second attempt. Not suffering from the dreaded sophomore slump, he is becoming a modern director whose works are more like events than simply released films.

Quentin Tarantino is a director who has also achieved this status through the director’s styles are vastly different. I cannot wait to feast on Peele’s next attempt.

Diabolique-1955

Diabolique-1955

Director Henri-Georges Clouzot

Starring Simone Signoret, Vera Clouzot, Paul Meuisse

Scott’s Review #878

Reviewed March 16, 2019

Grade: A

Diabolique (1955) is a masterful French thriller as compelling as frightening. It will have an insurmountable influence on future generations.

Shamefully remade and Americanized in 1996, starring Sharon Stone, a waste of time if you ask me, the original is the one to discover.

The film perfectly blends psychological intrigue, never-ending suspense, and even a good mix of horror that Hitchcock would find impressive (more about him later). Its pacing and frequent twists and turns make it brilliant.

Directed by Henri-Georges Clouzot, Les Diaboliques is set in a crumbling boarding school in Paris. Sadistic headmaster Michel Delassalle (Paul Meuisse) runs a tight ship but works for his Venezuelan wife, Christina (Vera Clouzot), who owns the school.

Michel is immersed in a torrid affair with schoolteacher Nicole Horner (Simone Signoret) and regularly abuses both women as well as his students. The two women embark on a plot to kill Michel, but when they succeed in their plan, Michel’s body goes missing.

The women panic.

In a few fun trivia tidbits, director Clouzot optioned the screenplay rights right after finishing Wages of Fear (1953), preventing Hitchcock from making the film. This movie helped inspire Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960).

Robert Bloch himself, the author of the novel version of Psycho, has stated in an interview that his all-time favorite horror film is Diabolique. If the film displays nuances incorporated in Psycho, this is undoubtedly the reason.

Clouzot also directs his wife, Vera, in the prominent role of Christina.

Hitchcock could have made the brilliance since the entire experience has his stamp and influence even though his best works lay ahead of him in 1955.

Still, from the Gothic mood to the “can’t believe your eyes” twisted, blood-curdling ending, the director immediately comes to mind every time I watch the film. The “shock” ending only exceeds expectations with a fantastic delivery.

The film takes an unusual stance on the dynamic between the two women, Christina and Nicole. Rather than take a traditional route and make the women rivals for the man’s affections, Clouzot makes the pair co-conspirators.

This only deepens their relationship as events unfold and take a darker and more dire turn.

They rely on each other as teammates rather than despise each other over their love for another man. Intelligently, they spend their energy ensuring the insipid man gets his just comeuppance for his dirty deeds.

Nicole leads Christina in the direction she needs to go.

The black-and-white cinematography is highly influential on the mood. With each unexpected twist or scene of peril, the lighting radiates suspense. The camera juxtaposes the frequent glowing of the white against the dark black, exuding a frightening, ghost-like presentation.

The entire setting of the school is laden with dark corners that provide good elements of foreboding and sinister moments to come.

As the women become more and more unnerved by the limitless possibilities that the missing body presents, many questions are asked but are impossible to answer. “Where is the body?”, “Could Michel be alive?” “If he is alive, is he hell-bent on revenge?” The viewer will also ask these questions throughout most of the final half.

When an unknown person begins to call the women, the questions multiply.

Clouzet uses frequent shots of objects to enhance the tension even further. There are close-ups of a dripping bathtub, a typewriter with a man’s hat and gloves, a woman’s feet as she removes her shoes, and a woman running in terror through the school.

These facets only enhance the overall experience as the suspense and the terror begin to mount.

Diabolique (1955) is considered one of the greatest thrillers of all time, and I concur with this assessment. A French version of Psycho (1960) that combines an acclaimed director’s ingenious subtle ideas into a giant web of delicious filmmaking.

The surprise ending is never seen coming, even if the viewer thinks they have the plot figured out. This point alone is reason enough for the film to realize its greatness.

Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein-1948

Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein-1948

Director Charles Barton

Starring Bud Abbott, Lou Costello

Scott’s Review #865

Reviewed February 9, 2019

Grade: B+

Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) was the first film of several to capitalize on the comedy duo’s popularity and merge them with several horror characters in a hybrid of the horror and comedy genres.

The zany film was enormously popular with fans, leading to other subsequent pairings, but this is the best of the bunch. The ingenious idea works well, and the bumbling pair presents an entertaining film fresh with good ideas and a harmless comedy romp.

The villainous Dracula, the Wolf Man, and the title horror character make the riches even loftier.

Working as baggage clerks at a Florida train station, Chick Young (Bud Abbott) and Wilbur Grey (Lou Costello) border on incompetence. After damaging two crates at the station, they deliver them to a local wax museum. Little do the pair realize that the crates house Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi) and the Frankenstein monster (Glenn Strange).

Once Chick and Wilbur arrive at the wax museum, a comedy of errors occurs as the monsters reanimate and escape while the pair are arrested for supposed theft.

Ultimately, the film culminates with an exciting finale at a nearby island castle, where a devious doctor (Lenore Aubert) intends to remove Wilbur’s brain.

The film is wonderfully campy and over-the-top, which is a substantial part of its appeal. The setup is delicious, as the audience knows Chick and Wilbur will ultimately face the various creatures but does not know how this will happen.

The quick-witted comedy duo hardly needs coaching, but their banter and timing seem particularly palpable in this screen offering. This is impressive given the historical account of neither actor wanting to make the film and both being convinced the result would be a bomb teetering on career suicide.

Any accusations that their hearts were not in it can be dismissed.

A large part of the appeal is the three individual monsters with different motivations and offerings.

Dracula is the villain in cahoots with the mad scientist.

Frankenstein’s monster is the victim, while the Wolf Man is the suffering hero.

Returning to roles that made them famous was crucial to the success of the film, and Lon Chaney Jr. and Bela Lugosi (Wolf Man and Count Dracula, respectively) deliver their lines with gusto, careful not to make themselves too menacing nor too foolish, and both blur the horror and comedy lines with perfection.

The filmmakers must be credited for the progressive slant of casting the mad scientist as a female rather than the traditional male.

Actress Aubert as Dr. Sandra Mornay is delicious as she lustfully seduces Wilbur in comic form. She needs not his body but the brain of a simpleton to insert into the head of the monster.

The young man and the gorgeous woman make an odd comedic pairing because of their physical differences. However, their combination is just right for a physical, lightweight comedy.

The final scene is clever and leads to a potential follow-up for the film. As Chick and Wilbur sail away from the looming castle in relief of their adventure, coming to a satisfying conclusion, Chick ensures Wilbur that all the monsters are gone.

An uncredited voice appearance by Vincent Price and a dangling cigarette coming from no mouth introduce the next chapter of The Invisible Man.

Hardly a masterpiece or cinematic genius, Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) does entertain.

Each player is well-cast, resulting in a culmination of good comedy infused with atmospheric horror elements done with the perfect light touch. The comic timing of all members ensures that all the pieces come together in just the right mix of fun and frights with a tongue-in-cheek approach.

What better choice for the escapist fare on a lazy Saturday afternoon?

Suspiria-2018

Suspiria-2018

Director- Luca Guadagnino

Starring-Dakota Johnson, Tilda Swinton

Scott’s Review #864

Reviewed February 7, 2019

Grade: B-

Dario Argento’s 1977 creative masterpiece is the original Suspiria, an orgy of style and visual spectacles carefully immersed within a standard slasher film appropriate for the times.

To attempt at a remake might be deemed foolhardy by some.

Argento’s film contains comprehensive and defined story elements whilst the new Suspiria (2018) changes course with a brazen attempt at achieving the same mystique as the original but falling short instead offering a plodding and mundane story that is almost nonsense and does not work.

Thankfully, a bloody and macabre finale brings the film above mediocrity.

Director Luca Guadagnino fresh off the Italian and LGBT-themed Call Me by Your Name (2017), a bright film peppered with melancholy romance and lifestyle conflict could not be more of a departure from Suspiria.

The respected director parlays into the horror genre with two of Hollywood’s top talents in tow, Tilda Swinton and Dakota Johnson, and a nice nod to the original film with a small appearance by leading lady Jessica Harper.

The premise of Suspiria remains intact as the period once again is 1977 and the location stays as Berlin, Germany. Susie Bannion (Johnson) is a gifted American dancer who joins the prestigious Tanz dance academy run by a coven of witches where she unearths demonic tendencies.

Coinciding with her arrival is the disappearance of another student, Patricia Hingle, and the revelation that her psychotherapist Josef Klemperer (Swinton) has Patricia’s journals chronicling details of the dastardly coven.

From an acting perspective, Swinton impresses the most as she tackles three distinctive roles: an elderly and troubled psychotherapist, artistic director Madame Blanc, and Mother Marko, an aging witch.

Each character is vastly different from the rest and allows the talented actress to immerse herself into the different characters. So convincing is she that I did not realize while watching the film that she played the psychotherapist or that the character was played by a female.

Admittedly not a fan of Dakota Johnson for perceptively using her Hollywood royalty to rise the ranks to film stardom or her lackluster film roles thus far- think Fifty Shades of Grey or the innumerable sequels- she does not do much for me in the central role of Susie. The miscast is more palpable in comparison to Harper’s rendition of the role decades earlier.

Johnson is predictably wooden and quite painful to watch especially matched against a stalwart like Swinton in many scenes. Lithe and statuesque the young actress does contain the physical qualities of a dancer, so there is that.

As a stand-alone film, my evaluation of Suspiria might be less harsh, but the original Suspiria is held at such lofty heights that this is impossible.

The problem is with the screenplay as compelling writing is sparse. Much of the plot makes little sense and does nothing to engage the viewer at the moment. Slow-moving and meandering and lacking a spark or an abrupt plot breakthrough, I quickly lost interest in what was going on.

The interminable running time of over two and a half hours is unnecessary and unsuccessful.

Before I completely rake Suspiria across the coals my cumulative rating increases with the astounding and garish final sequence which features a plethora of blood and dismemberment in a sickening witches’ sabbath.

As Klemperer lies incapacitated after being ambushed by the witches one girl is disemboweled followed by decapitation as the bold use of red is blended into the lengthy sequence. As the withered and bloated Mother Markos relinquishes her title an incarnation of Death is summoned, and heads explode.

The finale plays out like a horrible dance sequence.

To add to the above point the visuals and the cinematography are its highlights. By using mirrors and possessing a dream-like quality the film looks great and harbors an eerie and stylistic deathly crimson hue. The resulting project is one of spectacle and intrigue rather than a sum of its parts.

Rather than approaching the film with an introspective or cerebral motif simply going with the flow and letting it fester is recommended.

Guadagnino deserves credit for bravely attempting to undertake the creation of such a masterpiece and bringing it to audiences in 2018.

Suspiria (2018) suffers from a lack of plot or pacing and is the second runner-up to the original.  The story is not worth attempting to make heads or tails of since it is not interesting enough to warrant the effort.

Ultimately skip this version and stick to the brilliance of the Argento effort or better yet do not compare the two films at all.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Cinematography (won), Robert Altman Award (won)

The Transfiguration-2017

The Transfiguration-2017

Director-Michael O’Shea

Starring-Eric Ruffin, Chloe Levine

Scott’s Review #853

Reviewed January 7, 2019

Grade: B+

The Transfiguration (2017) is a quiet horror film and resoundingly peculiar vampire tale borrowing elements of similar genre pieces but adding fresh nuances to its story.

Some may feel the film is too slow-paced, but with patience there comes a terrific payoff and tremendous conclusion. Of the independent horror field and with a limited budget, the underlying message of teen loneliness and alienation comes through loud and clear.

The film wisely adds tidbits of classic film history which is a special treat for horror buffs.

Fourteen-year-old Milo (Eric Ruffin) has been through much trauma in his young life. His father has died, and his mother has recently committed suicide. Milo resides in a crummy Brooklyn high-rise with his older brother Lewis (Aaron Clifton Moten), a depressed military veteran.

Milo has a horrific secret- he is convinced he is a vampire and habitually kills strangers drinking their blood. When he meets troubled teen Sophie (Chloe Levine), the pair are inseparable, but Milo’s secret is threatened to be uncovered.

The bevy of neighborhood Brooklyn exterior shots are pleasing for those familiar with New York City locales. Similar in style to Beach Rats (2017) another recent coming-of-age story shot in Brooklyn springs to mind.

Many scenes of Milo and Chloe wandering around their neighborhood or riding the subway are featured making the overall package feel authentic and not overly produced. The Brooklyn beaches and skylines make frequent appearances.

The most compelling, and frightening, aspect of The Transfiguration is how convinced Milo is of his being a vampire leading me to think the writer is providing mental health learning. The audience immediately knows he is delusional, but he truly believes.

Terrifying is this reality as via flashback we see Milo discovering his mother’s body, her wrists slit. As he gruesomely tastes her blood a sense of wonderment we wonder if this is his vampire discovery moment. Surely a defense mechanism, it is nonetheless extreme behavior.

The character of Sophie is also worthy of discussion. With both of her parents deceased she is sent to live with her abusive grandfather who lives in the same building as Milo. We never see the character but know that he is vile.

In one scene Sophie appears to be raped by a group of boys and she yearns for a friend in Milo. As she slowly realizes his secret but incorrectly assumes he is writing a book not killing people, she can look past this to belong. Milo and Sophie desperately need each other.

Despite the macabre characterizations outlined above the film is not quite a downer. In the middle of the vampire story is a sweet and likable young romance between the two leads.

There is a charisma and charm between the two that is genuine and heartfelt and even the simplest conversations sparkle with the appeal. The final sacrifice that one makes for the other is riddled with kindness.

Fans of classic horror will be delighted with clips of the 1922 film Nosferatu as well as other gory cult classic films that Milo is obsessed with.

Innocently, he attempts to broaden Sophie’s exposure to vampire films- she thinks the Twilight films are masterpieces much to Milo’s chagrin. This fun banter balances the dreadful main story plot.

Does Milo have rooting power? Despite a history of animal torture and human killings, he is a remarkably nice kid. He is tempted to kill both Sophie and a young boy in the park but resists this urge.

In the end, he also saves Sophie ensuring she will have a better fate than he. The character is complex and a large part of the success of The Transfiguration.

Writer and director Michael O’Shea cleverly use a side story of a gang of bullies to incorporate a dramatic and shocking conclusion with a wonderful twist. Milo, though tragic and flawed, proves himself a hero as he uses an opportunity to punish and exact revenge on enemies while saving the life of another character.

In this way, he will undoubtedly gain sympathy from the audience.

The Transfiguration (2017) is a unique film that infuses character development and a romance with a blend of horrific blood-curdling moments, especially during “kill” scenes.

I hope that this very small film with no advertising budget receives enough word of mouth to gather a following or at the very least garner recognition for the up-and-coming director (O’Shea).

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: John Cassavetes Award

Hereditary-2018

Hereditary-2018

Director-Ari Aster

Starring-Toni Colette, Alex Wolff

Scott’s Review #837

Reviewed December 6, 2018

Grade: B+

Hereditary (2018) is a horror film that provides quite an unsettling feeling long after the credits have rolled, which is always a positive in my book. Moreover, the film contains more than a handful of effectively chilling moments and a breathtakingly good performance by its star Toni Colette, who delivers the goods in spades.

The film is the debut project by writer and director Ari Aster, who certainly has a bright future ahead of him.

We meet the Graham family- artist Annie (Colette) and husband Steve, along with sixteen-year-old Peter (Alex Wolff) and thirteen-year-old Charlie as they mourn the death of Annie’s mother.

As Annie sees an apparition of her mother in her workshop, the mother’s grave is desecrated prompting her to attend a support group to deal with her problems. When Charlie then tragically dies in a gruesome accident, Annie begins to teeter over the edge putting her remaining loved ones at risk.

The story that Aster writes is tremendously hard to follow leaving many perplexities and assured questions about the plot. Was fellow support group attendee Joan (Ann Dowd) a sinister cultist along with Annie’s mother or merely a kindly friend trying to help? Did Annie kill her family or were their deaths fated, a result of an unstoppable force hence the “hereditary” title?

A post-film synopsis will need to be read by many viewers (myself included) for clarity.

Frightful sequences resonated with me for days following my viewing of Hereditary, so much so that a second viewing may very well be required.

The decapitation of Charlie is one of the creepiest scenes I have ever witnessed as well as tidbits such as Annie furiously pounding her head on the attic door, clearly not herself. Not to be outdone, Steve bursting into flames, and Annie slowly beheading herself with piano wire while coven members look on may lead to nightmares for days.

Shot in a style that makes the film feel claustrophobic and contained, props must be given to the camera crew for creating a dollhouse aesthetic. Enhancing this point is artist Annie’s clay dollhouse, mirroring the families.

The viewer sees a mock version of the real family and when Annie decides to create a mimic of Charlie’s headless body to express herself the results are dire.

The best part of Hereditary, though, is Colette’s performance.

Flawless as the haggard mother in The Sixth Sense (1999), her role as Annie takes the actress to even greater heights. The woman slowly teeters to the brink of insanity as she awakens one morning to find the headless corpse of her daughter lying in the back seat of her car.

Aster wisely has her discovery and reactions appear off camera giving the sequence a high element of anticipatory horror. From this point, we know that Annie will steamroll further into insanity as she realizes the death of her daughter was caused by her son.

Horror films involving witchcraft or other demonic supernatural elements do not always work for me as I find realistic situations more effective, but Hereditary is atmospheric and effective.

The film possesses this element throughout the entire run so that we know bad things will happen, we just do not know when.

To further explain, many scenes involve closeups of characters seemingly deep in thought or shrouded in mystery. Evidence of this is when Peter sits in a classroom hearing the clicking of teeth, a habit of Charlie’s. When a trance-like Peter returns to reality, he is confused and slams his head against his desk breaking his nose.

Aster might have been wise to write a more concrete screenplay instead of leaving the audience unable to add up the parts.

Interpretation is a fine thing, but in the case of Hereditary, the sum may have been greater than the parts. Meaning, a more satisfying, though not less frightening, ending would be encouraged for his next picture.

Hereditary (2018) is a demonic horror film that offers a perplexing plot of a family’s hereditary curse and ultimate doom.

Thanks to brilliant acting and some of the most disturbing scenes ever witnessed, the film is a breath of fresh air in the over-saturated horror genre and a welcome debut from an upstart director.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Female Lead-Toni Collette, Best First Feature