Category Archives: Horror

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, Chloë Levine

Scott’s Review #853

Reviewed January 7, 2019

Grade: B+

The Transfiguration (2017) is a quiet horror film and resoundingly peculiar vampire tale that borrows elements from similar genre pieces but adds fresh nuances to its story.

Some may feel the film is too slow-paced, but a terrific payoff and tremendous conclusion come with patience. In 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, 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 Moten), a depressed military veteran.

Milo has a horrific secret- he is convinced he is a vampire and habitually kills strangers by drinking their blood. When he meets troubled teen Sophie (Chloë 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. Like 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. This leads me to think the writer is providing mental health education. 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. Indeed, it is a defense mechanism, but 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 mentioned above, the film is not quite a downer. In the middle of the vampire story, there is a sweet and likable young romance between the two leads.

They have a genuine and heartfelt charisma and charm, and even the most straightforward conversations sparkle with appeal. The final sacrifice that one makes for the other is riddled with kindness.

Fans of classic horror will be delighted to see clips of the 1922 film Nosferatu and 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 charming kid. He is tempted to kill both Sophie and a young boy in the park but resists this urge.

Ultimately, he also saves Sophie, ensuring she will have a better fate than him. The character is complex and a large part of The Transfiguration’s success.

Writer and director Michael O’Shea cleverly uses a side story of a gang of bullies to incorporate a dramatic and shocking conclusion with a fantastic twist.

Though tragic and flawed, Milo proves himself a hero by using an opportunity to punish and exact revenge on enemies while saving another character’s life.

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

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

I hope this 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

Goodnight Mommy-2015

Goodnight Mommy-2015

Director Severin Fiala, Veronika Franz

Starring Susanne Wuest, Lukas Schwarz, Elias Schwarz

Scott’s Review #833

Reviewed November 21, 2018

Grade: B

Goodnight Mommy (2015) is an Austrian film not for the faint of heart nor the squeamish. Being a seasoned viewer of diverse, bizarre, and otherwise unpleasant cinematic experiences, the film was a tough watch.

Universally lauded and even submitted as Austria’s Foreign Language entry for the Academy Awards, the film is rather pointless and gratuitous in its torture scenes. Still, the film stayed with me days later, always a positive.

In a peculiar and unclear story opening, we witness a mother (Severin Fiala) and nine-year-old twin sons (Lukas and Elias Schwarz), residing in a remote lakeside location surrounded by cornfields and nature.

The mother (character unnamed) is disfigured and wrapped in bandages with only her eyes and mouth revealed, a haunting and grotesque image.

The twins, Elias and Lukas, are disturbed by her appearance and concerned when she begins acting strangely, ignoring Lukas entirely and chastising Elias repeatedly.

Through a game that the mother and twins play, the audience learns that the woman is a television personality- has she had a facelift of her choosing, or has she been in an accident? As she acts cruelly and selfishly towards the twins they begin to question whether the woman is their mother or a fake.

They become determined to find out at all costs, turning the tables on the mother, and resorting to torturous methods to get the truth out of her.

A few positives for me in Goodnight Mommy are as follows. The Austrian setting and language are huge strengths in adding to the mystique of the overall film.

The unfamiliar (to me) speech and the remote modern home that the mother uses as a sanctuary work very well.  Loneliness and isolation are infused into the film giving a measure of dread. The way the plot unfolds and the circumstances are slowly revealed is good.

The hows and the whys of the mother’s surgery come to fruition and allegiances switch from the boys to the mothers throughout the film, which I found interesting.

The major negatives are the motivations of the twins and the big reveal at the end of the film- a reveal easily figured out within the first portion of the running time.

Though not shocking, the revelation only complicates said motivations, and questions abound. Is one of the twins just plain crazy? Who is the woman in the photo with the mother dressed exactly like her?

If this is a red herring, no wonder the twins think this woman is impersonating their mother. The mother not being able to escape the twins’ clutches is a bit hard to swallow- remember they are only nine years old!

The torture scenes are brutal for the audience to endure. As Elias and Lukas tie their mother to her bedpost and demand she reveal she is not their mother the methods they resort to are devious and cringe-worthy.

Prolonged in nature so that the viewer feels they are also being tortured when the twins burn her face with a magnifying glass, the process is slow and excruciating.

Later, they decide to superglue her mouth shut and when they realize she cannot eat, they sever the glue with scissors leading to a bloody mess.

These scenes are tough to take.

The point of Goodnight Mommy (2015) seems rather, well, pointless. Torture for the sake of torture and many plot holes or story-dictated plot devices- who did not think that the Red Cross would fail in rescuing the mother?

Nonetheless, the film does contain a mystique and an unnerving, haunting quality.  The viewer will undoubtedly be kept thinking about the subject matter and the ending, specifically the final still-frame.

Bride of Frankenstein-1935

Bride of Frankenstein-1935

Director James Whale

Starring Boris Karloff, Elsa Lanchester

Scott’s Review #825

Reviewed October 31, 2018

Grade: A-

After four long years as director, James Whale finally agreed to follow up on and resurrect his character, The Monster. Fortunately, Boris Karloff also returned to the role he made famous. In this installment, he meets a mate played by the gorgeous Elsa Manchester.

Critics argue that the sequel is superior to the original, but I am not so sure of that; I slightly prefer Frankenstein. Still, the aptly titled Bride of Frankenstein (1935) is a fantastic effort and a memorable classic in and of itself.

The plot picks up where the original Frankenstein ended and includes a sub-plot from the 1818 Mary Shelley novel. Having learned his lesson about the drawbacks of creating life, Dr. Frankenstein (Colin Clive) is coerced into making a female mate for the Monster.

Much of the action follows the Monster, who is on the run from hunters as he encounters devious and kindly individuals. In clever form, Manchester plays the “Bride” and Mary Shelley, who is heralded for her masterful writing.

The main difference between Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein is that the Monster is more developed from a character perspective. Even more empathetic and now uttering some dialogue, the pained character contains more profound moments and a damaged quality.

Karloff reportedly despised this aspect, preferring that his character be more ambivalent, using grunts and facial expressions more than words, but to me, the development works well.

As the Monster traverses the forest looking for shelter while being pursued in a witch hunt style, a lovely sequence occurs between the Monster and a lonely blind man. Attracted by the gorgeous sounds of a violin playing “Ave Maria”, the blind hermit befriends the Monster and teaches him a few words like “friend”.

Harboring no ill will towards the Creature, the old hermit feels blessed and thanks God for sending him a friend. The tender moment is then shattered when a fire burns down the cottage.

The constant theme of loneliness and despair continues what Frankenstein did and is more in line with Shelley’s novel. The Creature is a tortured soul yearning for love and affection yet suffering from a temper. He is childlike and struggles to know the difference between right and wrong.

Like Frankenstein, the sequel contains high-quality special effects and ambiance. With a storm raging (naturally), the thunder and lightning qualities add so much to a horror film, filling it with suspense and a particular science fiction element.

When the Bride is hoisted to the sky and struck by lightning, the scene is both campy and terrifying.

How delicious a character is Manchester as The Monster’s Bride? The character is forever recognizable in pop culture with her statuesque seven-foot height (the actress used stilts), white-streaked hairdo, macabre white gown, and jerky, animal-like head movements.

Timeless in characterization, the beautiful woman possesses a macabre yet humorous quality. The moment she becomes alert, sees the monster, and shrieks is a memorable moment in film history.

Throughout cinematic history, few sequels ever live up to their predecessors, but Bride comes close.

Easily able to be watched in tandem with Frankenstein and perfect for a bit of Saturday afternoon nostalgia, Bride of Frankenstein (1935) is a wonderful trip down memory lane to a time when horror was as thrilling in simple black and white as it is with all the frills added.

Thanks to Whale’s brilliant direction, both films are legendary in their inspiration and achievements.

Oscar Nominations: Best Sound Recording

Halloween-2018

Halloween-2018

Director-David Gordon Green

Starring-Jamie Lee Curtis, Judy Greer

Scott’s Review #823

Reviewed October 23, 2018

Grade: B+

Let’s be honest- nobody will ever be able to either top or recreate the iconic 1978 masterpiece Halloween- so any real attempt is a moot point.

Throughout the subsequent decades, many sequels or remakes have emerged and have largely disappointed or turned the franchise into a joke.

With the latest incarnation of Halloween (2018), director David Gordon Green gets it right by creating a follow-up to the original, skipping all the other films. Scoring Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie is a major win along with seemingly dozens of neat references to the original gem.

Set forty years to the day (Halloween Eve and Halloween, naturally!), the audience is first given a summary of killer Michael Meyer’s (Nick Castle) time spent in Smith Grove Sanitarium once captured following the 1978 Haddonfield killing spree.

Two journalists visit Meyers in captivity and attempt to make him speak after forty years of silence by mentioning the name Laurie Strode and showing him his notorious Halloween mask.

Conveniently, he is scheduled to be transferred to a maximum-security prison the following day. We just know that Meyers will escape.

Meanwhile, Laurie has been living with post-traumatic stress disorder since her attack and lives in a constant state of paranoia.

With two failed marriages and a daughter, Karen (Judy Greer), who is traumatized by her mother’s anxiety, Laurie’s life has not been easy. As an aside, I just love how Laurie dons the same hairstyle she had at age seventeen.

While she awaits the inevitable return of Michael, her secluded house is peppered with traps and guns allowing her to be at the ready at any moment. Despite her problems, Laurie is very close with her granddaughter, Allyson (Andi Matichak).

When the inevitable happens and Michael escapes by presumably causing a bus accident off-screen, the action truly begins. The coincidence of this happening on Halloween night is to be expected and embraced.

Audiences who see the film certainly are not new to the genre. The target audience is the crowd who either grew up with the original or generations who followed and were introduced to the original.

Therefore, the film is wise to not try and reinvent the wheel- giving fans what they expect. To this point, the opening graphics (the eerie orange writing and the glowing jack-o-lantern) are intact as well as the “introducing” credit for its heroin star- in this case, Matichak.

There are several certainties with a horror film like Halloween. We know there will be “kills”, we know there will be an inevitable showdown between Laurie and Michael Myers to conclude the film. The fun is in the trip we take to get there. Who will be offed and how? A butcher-knife? other Halloween delights?

Since there are arguably three female leads and three generations of Strode’s, will the film make one of them feel Michael’s deadly wrath?

Halloween works, and a large reason for this is countless nods to its past. Many scenes pay homage to attention-paying fans resulting in riches and nostalgic memories.

Allyson’s boyfriend’s father’s name is Lonnie- undoubtedly the kid who Dr. Loomis scared away from the Meyers house forty years ago.  Then there is a neighbor woman wearing curlers and slicing a sandwich with a butcher knife, who Michael steals the knife from.

Finally, as Allyson sits in the back of her class and glances out the window she sees not Michael, but Laurie standing across the street staring at her. These gems are in large part thanks to clever writing and study.

There are a couple of negatives to mention. I am not crazy about the casting of Judy Greer as Jamie Lee Curtis’s daughter. The actresses look nothing alike nor does Curtis seem old enough to be Greer’s mother.

Furthermore, attempts to add some comic relief moments, two bumbling police officer’s talking about brownies, Allyson’s goofy father, and the salty tongue of the kid one of the baby-sitters sits for does not work.

How great would it have been to include P.J. Soles, Nancy Loomis, or even Kyle Richards in cameos? Since Curtis and Castle returned I wanted more familiar faces.

In wise form Gordon Green leaves the window wide open for a potential sequel, so be sure to stay for the end credits. My wish would be for this to parlay to the aftereffects of the killings on the same night, which Halloween II (1981) did so successfully.

If the box office returns are strong enough and with Curtis on board for another installment, the possibilities are endless.

Frankenstein-1931

Frankenstein-1931

Director James Whale

Starring Colin Clive, Boris Karloff

Scott’s Review #822

Reviewed October 22, 2018

Grade: A

Those of us who treasure cinematic brilliance in films of the past need to look no further than Frankenstein (1931), a masterpiece in the horror genre.

Some consider it the greatest horror film ever made. The still frightening work is based on the legendary 1818 Mary Shelley novel.

Highly influential to later groupings of horror film sub-genres, the importance of this film must never be forgotten.

In a small European village, a scientist named Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) is determined to create human life by stealing fresh body parts from cemeteries and using electrical shock as part of his creation.

He convinces his assistant, Fritz (Dwight Frye), to steal a human brain from a former professor’s laboratory. Due to a clumsy mistake, Fritz must steal the brain of a criminal rather than a “normal” human being, the result being dire when Frankenstein’s monster is created.

The creation of the monster (and no, the monster’s name is not Frankenstein, as some might assume) is astounding, especially given the period of the early 1930s.

With a flattop, heavy eyelids, protruding neck terminals, and his hulking physique, he is a frightening figure with a yearning, childlike nature. The monster’s innocence makes him so tragic.

A compelling scene occurs when the audience sees the monster turn around and face the camera.

What separates Frankenstein from many other horror films is the underlying sadness and empathy we feel toward the monster. The “villain” in most horror films is clearly defined, but who is the villain in Frankenstein?

How can it be the monster when he, unaware of his strength, drowns a young child? We root for the beast when he hangs the dastardly dwarf, and we hate the town of peasants who seek revenge on the monster.

The complexities in this film are endless.

The main character is an interesting study. Title billed: the character is a genius while also teetering on the brink of madness- he is not the film’s hero, nor is he entirely sympathetic.

He is the ruin of a monster who has feelings and sadness in him. Frankenstein’s fiancée, Elizabeth (Mae Clark), is concerned for him, which adds a nurturing element to the dynamic. The intent is for the audience not to despise Frankenstein but to be enthralled with his complexities.

The term “monster film” can conjure feelings of silliness or over-the-top acting, but Frankenstein is more artistic than goofy.

The famous line “It’s alive!” was paid tribute to in later years, but an equally spectacular horror film, Rosemary’s Baby (1968), when Rosemary feels her haunted baby kick. To say nothing of the tribute Mel Brook’s classic Young Frankenstein (1974) paid to the original.

Given that the film was made in 1931, the effects and lighting techniques are beyond impressive. The overall tone of the film is stylistic, with a prevalent fairy-tale beauty unlike any films made at the time, save for perhaps Dracula, the 1931 horror-vampire masterpiece.

Frankenstein and Dracula would make a delicious double feature on Saturday evenings. Director James Whale creates a magical environment, holding up thriving generation after generation, never seeming dated.

Frankenstein (1931) was followed by numerous sequels, the best of which is Bride of Frankenstein (1935). Undoubtedly, the film influenced campy yet influential monster films to follow- most notably the “Hammer Horror films” of the same tone.

Despite teetering on the one-hundred-year-old mark, the brilliant film is timeless and must be introduced to young filmmakers everywhere (especially in the horror genre).

The Nun-2018

The Nun-2018

Director-Corin Hardy

Starring-Taissa Farmiga, Demian Bichir 

Scott’s Review #812

Reviewed September 19, 2018

Grade: B-

A film such as The Nun (2018) is best described as a genre horror film strong on atmosphere, scares, and effect, but weak when it comes to story, dialogue, or weaving much of the other films together that it supposedly relates to in a satisfying way.

To stress, the set pieces and foreboding convent where most events take place are tremendously thought out adding to the stylistic filming, but the story stinks, making the overall result barely above mediocre.

Said to be connected to The Conjuring (2013) and Annabelle (2014), this story point is all but laughable.

In theory, a prequel since the film is set in 1952, the only connection is a super quick sequence of a scene in later years. Ed and Lorraine Warren use a character in The Nun as a case study for their audiences.

Admittedly, I have not seen The Conjuring 2 (2016), but from what I can surmise, what remains of The Nun is a stand-alone film. Was the demonic nun in The Conjuring 2? This may make more sense.

The creepy setting in Romania- is a superb choice given the association with Transylvania and Dracula. The film begins with the suicide of a Roman Catholic nun in a gloomy and largely abandoned Monastery.

Having been visited by an unseen force who kills another nun, a vicious demon appearing in the form of a nun looks on menacingly. Father Burke (Demian Bichir) from the Vatican arrives with Sister Irene (Taissa Farmiga) to investigate, where they meet flirtatious local, Frenchy.

The atmosphere used throughout almost the entirety of the film is spot on and highly effective.

Most of the scenes are set at nighttime (naturally!) and in or around the vicinity of the spooky, gothic monastery. To double, a gorgeous castle in Romania was used. From the dark and narrow hallways to the crucifixes and obvious religious decor, the props and set design shine through.

The best scenes occur within the grounds of the statuesque building as dozens of graves can be seen- when bells from the graves begin to ring on their own and spirits can be seen lurking, the audience is in for a good scare.

Even the scenes in daylight hours are fraught with creepy tension. When Frenchy comes upon the nun, dead for days, she dangles from the monastery, eyes gouged and covered with feasting crows, as her blood drips onto the front porch.

The camera closeup of the shot is highly effective as are others involving the typical jolts and creaky floors that have become a cliche in horror films somehow feel fresh and invigorating in The Nun.

And the demonic nun, a grimacing Marilyn Manson type ghoulish figure, is downright scary.

Unfortunately, along with praise must come to some criticisms. The story and the logic do not make too much sense and I stopped trying to figure out the plot points halfway through.

Why the Father and Sister are chosen to go alone to investigate is implausible as is a silly, brief mention of a Duke in the old days evoking a curse in the monastery that was “conjured” up during World War II and must be contained again is a hardly compelling story.

The plot-driven device (and frankly done to death at this point) attempt to forge a romantic connection between Irene and Frenchy never works. How many times in film have we seen a handsome, young man trying to woo a pretty nun away from her calling?

Filmmakers may have added this for humor and (hopefully) the intentional or not religious exclamations by the characters of “Oh My God!” or “Mother of God!” are laugh-out-loud silly.

At the end of the day, with a film such as The Nun (2018), riveting writing is not top of the wish list- great atmosphere and effects are.

In this way, the film delivers some excellent content and makes for an enjoyable experience with some good thrills and scares. Thankfully, for the horror genre, the film is rated a solid “R” and not watered down for PG-13 audiences. Just be prepared for some hokey writing.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer-2017

The Killing of a Sacred Deer-2017

Director Yorgos Lanthimos

Starring Colin Farrell, Nicole Kidman

Scott’s Review #774

Reviewed June 15, 2018

Grade: A

For fans of Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos, who created such disturbing and bizarre films as 2009’s Dogtooth and 2015’s The Lobster, The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017) will be a treasure.

As with those films, the odd story and the peculiar acting styles are prevalent, making the film quite the experience.

I relish the film and its unusual nature. It offers a cinematic experience that is insightful, mesmerizing, extreme, and, quite frankly, brilliant.

Steven Murphy (Farrell) is an esteemed cardiac surgeon who “befriends” a troubled teenage boy named Martin (Barry Keoghan), whose father had died years earlier as a result of Steven’s negligence.

They fall ill when Martin slowly insinuates himself into Steven’s family life. Martin threatens to kill the entire family unless Steven kills either his wife Anna (Nicole Kidman) or one of his two children- the victim can be of his choosing.

The creepy premise is enormously intriguing as the conclusion cannot be foreseen.

A basic yet deep storyline is wonderfully spun, with many possible plot directions.

After forty-five minutes or so of the audience wondering why Steven and Martin meet secretly in diners, hospital corridors, or other remote areas, the teen boy’s true motivations come to the surface as he rapidly and calmly puts his cards on the table for Steven.

Surprisingly, none of the characters are particularly sympathetic.

One would assume that the Murphy family- wholesome, affluent, and astute, would garner audience support, but we slowly peel back the onion on each character.

With a gorgeous house in a quiet Cincinnati neighborhood, Steven and Anna (a doctor herself) are sometimes harsh and physical with their kids. In contrast, the kids (Bob and Kim) develop a strange fascination with Martin.

In this way, each character is peculiar and has dire motivations as the plot unfolds.

Lanthimos is quietly becoming one of my favorite new directors. He slowly churns out one disturbing film after the next. His clear Stanley Kubrick influences bubble to the surface, particularly in The Killing of a Sacred Deer.

The score is crisp with uniqueness, with plodding and sudden bombastic classical music pieces eliciting emotions like surprise and terror from the audience.

From a visual perspective, fans of Kubrick will no doubt notice the long camera shots and slowly panning camera angles. The hospital’s long and foreboding hallways are prominently featured as we follow a character walking along the corridors.

This is highly reminiscent of the Overlook hotel sequences in the 1980 Kubrick masterpiece, The Shining.

One particularly jarring nuance in the film is the speech patterns of most of the actors—clearly dictated by Lanthimos and also present in 2015’s The Lobster.

The character of Steven talks very quickly but with a monotone delivery and in a matter-of-fact style; Kim and Martin also speak this way. I didn’t notice the quality as much with Kidman’s Anna, but Farrell went to town.

I’m not sure this works throughout the entire film since the mannerisms give off almost a comical element.

This uniqueness makes the film more quirky and decidedly non-mainstream, which is to be celebrated.

The climax of the film is brutal.

As Steven brandishes a loaded shotgun, the family gathers in their family room, Anna fussing over her new black dress. As the group dons pillowcases, Steven goes Russian roulette-style on the family, randomly firing a shot until one member is killed.

When the remaining family members see Martin at the diner the next day, they give him icy, hateful looks.

The entire scene is done without dialog and is tremendously macabre.

Rest assured, I am eagerly awaiting Lanthimos’s next project (reportedly already in the works) and hope against hope he continues to use the superb Colin Farrell, the brilliant Nicole Kidman, and newcomer Barry Keoghan again.

Thanks to tremendous acting, a riveting score, and enough thrills and creeps to last a lifetime, The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017) is at the top of its game.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Male-Barry Keoghan, Best Cinematography

The Blair Witch Project-1999

The Blair Witch Project-1999

Director Daniel Myrick, Eduardo Sanchez

Starring Heather Donahue, Joshua Leonard, Michael Williams

Scott’s Review #761

Reviewed May 22, 2018

Grade: A

When a horror film “scares the viewer to death” then that film has superseded what it has intended to do since horror films are a dime a dozen these days.

Fondly remembering sitting in a crowded and very dark movie theater to see The Blair Witch Project (1999), I was left both mesmerized and clutching my seat for dear life. This film had an enormous impact on me.

The film wisely uses hand-held cameras (black and white 16mm film) and Hi-8 video, manipulating the audience into using their imaginations leading to terrifying results making the film one of the scariest horror films of the 1990s.

Sometimes what you don’t see is much more frightening than what is seen on screen.

In 1994 three college-aged amateur filmmakers (Heather, Michael, and Joshua) decided to hike to Burkittsville, Maryland to film a documentary about a legend known as the “Blair Witch”.

The witch is reportedly responsible for mysterious deaths and disappearances over the past two hundred years. They interview, wander, and joke around with each other as a sense of dread begins to develop.

According to the film, the trio themselves disappear, but a year later their equipment is uncovered fully intact with the film footage able to be viewed.

The 1999 film is professed to be the footage left behind by the group.

Throughout the film we watch the individuals conduct interviews with the townspeople and eventually get lost in the woods at nightfall, forced to stay the night as a mysterious entity terrorizes them.

Numerous creepy noises and rustlings scare the group.

In retrospect, with more insight and knowledge about the film, it may be easy for critics to dismiss The Blair Witch Project as either a hoax or a complete manipulation, but in 1999 audiences flocked to the theaters in droves as word of mouth spread.

I saw the film twice on the big screen and was frightened equally with each viewing. More importantly, with the onset of the reality television craze, the film was clever in capitalizing on this trend, so it is to be championed.

Timing is everything!

In the film genre, The Blair Witch Project used buzz and word of mouth to elicit interest before the film was even released- and then the craze began.

The film was highly influential to subsequent releases that also chose to utilize camcorders as their method of storytelling- think 2007’s Paranormal Activity and 2008’s Cloverfield.

The Blair Witch Project is similar in tone to older masterpieces such as 1974’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and 1968’s Night of the Living Dead- independent releases made on a shoestring budget that became enormously successful.

As with these films, the camerawork was tremendously important in eliciting necessary realism.

What makes The Blair Witch Project enormously authentic is the tricks used not only on the audience but also on the cast. Reportedly the film was almost entirely improvised including dialogue and situations that the characters faced.

The actors began to feel as if the events they were supposed to act were happening- their map disappeared and noises were created to frighten them.

This clever approach to Method acting elicited the perfect responses from all involved- especially as they got colder, hungrier, and more desperate.

My concern is how well 1999’s The Blair Witch Project will hold up as the years pass. Phenomenally effective and tremendously profitable at the time, dozens of imitations have arisen since the idea of the film was novel. So much so that it makes the original idea seem dated.

One thing remains true- the film gave the horror genre a much-needed breath of fresh air and influenced many films to come.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best First Feature (Under $500,000) (won)

A Quiet Place-2018

A Quiet Place-2018

Director John Krasinski

Starring Emily Blunt, John Krasinski

Scott’s Review #751

Reviewed May 1, 2018

Grade: B+

A clever modern horror film, A Quiet Place (2018) offers a unique premise and novel use of sound to elicit a compelling, edge of your seat story.

With a science fiction slant and a “quiet” sensibility, the film is a good offering with ample jumps and frights that fit with the story rather than being added unnecessarily.

Actor turned director, John Krasinski shines in this film to say nothing of the raw talents of Emily Blunt and the two child actors involved. Only the four principles exist in the story which is a benefit.

In the year 2020, most of the human population has been decimated by vicious creatures called “Death Angels”, who have a hypersensitive hearing- they cannot see but pounce on their prey at every sound made. Thus the survivors must either whisper or communicate non-verbally.

An intelligent couple, Lee (Krasinski) and Evelyn Abbott (Blunt), an engineer and a doctor have managed to survive with their two children, Regan and Marcus, their youngest son Beau having been killed after his toy rocket accidentally goes off. The family exists on a farm in upstate New York having created intricate ways to ward off the creatures but live in constant fear of impending doom.

As Evelyn is now pregnant and due to give birth any day, in addition to Regan’s deafness, Lee attempt to create a mock ear to enable her to hear. One evening he decides to take Marcus out to hunt while Regan visits Beau’s grave.  When Evelyn goes into labor she steps on a sharp nail, dropping a picture that alerts a nearby creature.

The remainder of the film (only ninety minutes in length) is spent with Evelyn alone in peril as the rest of the family makes efforts to save her with some eventual dire results, both before and after the baby is born.

A Quiet Place immediately stands out as a unique film- especially for horror- by using sign language and sub-titles to show not only the characters communicating with each other but also to the audience. This tactic is successful at immediately getting the viewer absorbed in Abbott’s world and the hurdles they face.

This unconventional approach gives the film more depth than a standard horror film would normally have and is tremendously effective.

Such marvels are Blunt and Krasinski as the protective and clever parents that I fell in love with both characters almost immediately and bought them as a palpable couple. This is no stretch considering the two stars are dating in real life, but alas their chemistry works well in the film and they make a believable team.

Both Lee and Evelyn will do whatever it takes to protect their brood, and after a lovely day of foraging for supplies in an abandoned grocery store, we feel heartbreak when their youngest is annihilated by the savage creature.

Lee, and Krasinski looking perfectly hunky in his beard and muscles, falls into the hero/Dad role nicely while Blunt gives an emotional bravado performance worthy almost of an Oscar nomination if this were a different genre.

Not to be usurped by more seasoned actors, both child actors are wonderfully cast and hold their own. Millicent Simmonds, an unknown, flawlessly portrays Regan as the young actress who is herself deaf which translated well onto the large screen. And Noah Jupe plays sensitive yet brave to the hilt. Both assuredly have bright acting futures ahead of them.

The “creature” is a strong element of the film but suffers some misses as well.  Careful not to be too amateurish looking or too obviously heavy on the CGI effects, the fastness and ferocious nature are effective.

However, no apparent motivation is ever given nor an explanation of how they came to exist is mentioned. Perhaps a sequel will give more depth? Regardless, I wanted to know more about the backstory of the creature. And how did Abbott’s hold out so long when no others did?

A Quiet Place succeeds as a frightful film with depth and intelligence. Perhaps working better as an independent film  (it could have been edgier) with more grit and less polish from the creature, the film was released by Paramount Pictures.

Nonetheless, Krasinski is off to a great start as a director and leading man with an impressive horror effort containing nice scares and little gore.

Oscar Nominations: Best Film Editing

Friday the 13th: Part III: 1982

Friday the 13th: Part III: 1982

Director Steve Miner

Starring Dana Kimmell, Paul Kratka

Scott’s Review #743

Reviewed April 17, 2018

Grade: A-

By 1982 the Friday the 13th installments were becoming an almost annual event, which would continue until the late 1980s.

Still popular and fresh at the time (the novelty would soon wear thin), Part III has the distinction of being released in 3-D, a highly novel concept and just perfect for a slasher film, including sharp weapons to shove at the camera at every turn.

Directed once again by Steve Miner, who also directed Part II,  the film charters familiar territory that will certainly please fans of the genre.

The horror gem still feels fresh to me decades after its original release.

The plot originally was intended to copy 1981’s successful Halloween II and capitalize on the return of one central character, Ginny (Amy Steel), and continue her night of terror as she is whisked away to a local hospital following her ordeal at Camp Crystal Lake.

While this plot seems laden with good, gruesome “kill” possibilities (think syringes, scalpels, and other neat medical objects), unfortunately, this was not to be after Steel balked at a return appearance.

Directly following the bloody events the night before, a new batch of teenagers- oblivious to the recent killings- except for tortured Chris (Dana Kimmell), who once was attacked by the crazed killer, travel to Camp Crystal Lake for a weekend of fun and partying.

As Chris teeters between imagining sounds and shadows, traumatized by her past, Jason lurks nearby waiting to pounce on unsuspecting victims. In this installment, Chris is most certainly the “final girl”, a fact that is obvious with the immediate backstory.

The other characters fall in line with traditional slasher stereotypes- the lovelorn couple, the prankster, and a stoner couple. Also, a rival biker gang is thrown in for added drama as they vow revenge on the group following an incident at a convenience store.

A few main differences between Part III and Parts I and II follow:  Part III incorporates fewer “point of view” camera shots from Jason’s perspective, and more from the viewpoint of the victims.

The result is neither better nor worse- just different.

This is the first installment in which Jason dons his trademark hockey mask giving the film a slicker feel, and more identity, than Part II did, where Jason mostly wore a burlap sack.

Cleverly, Jason steals the hockey mask from one of his victims.

Finally, as evidenced by the soundtrack, Part III adds a disco/techno beat to the famous “chi chi chi” sounds, giving the music a distinct 1980s feel that the two preceding installments do not have- those feel more like 1970s films.

Memorable slayings include a knife shoved through a victim’s chest while resting on a hammock, electrocution via a basement fuse box,  and death via a shooting spear gun.

The main draw to the kills and thus the film itself is the clever use of 3-D technology, which makes the audience feel like the center of the action.

What a treat to see the implements used in the killings coming right at me!

Credit must be given to the added diversity Friday the 13th: Part III incorporates. For the first time (a glorified black extra in Part II does not count) minority characters are featured.

Bikers Fox (Hispanic) and Ali (Black) as well as pretty Vera Sanchez are included giving the film more of an inclusive feel- though each of these characters is killed off.

Enjoyable also is the inclusion of a quick recap of Part II, similar to what Part II did with the original so that the climax of the preceding film gives the viewer a good glimpse of how the action left off.

The screenwriters add a few comical characters, admittedly offed rather quickly into the mix.

I would have loved to have seen a bit more junk food-eating Harold and his nagging wife Edna, for example, before they meet their maker.

Hardly high art, Friday the 13th: Part III (1982) is mostly remembered for some cool, innovative technology, a tiny bit of camp that does not overwhelm the straight-forward horror flavor, and for still seeming fresh before the franchise got old, stale, and tired.

Part III, along with I and II, make for a wonderful trio in one of horror’s finest franchises.

Friday the 13th: Part II: 1981

Friday the 13th: Part II: 1981

Director Steve Miner

Starring Amy Steel, John Furey

Scott’s Review #742

Reviewed April 15, 2018

Grade: A-

Hot on the heels of the surprising success of the low-budget slasher film, Friday the 13th, a sequel to the 1980 film was immediately ordered.

The film was released merely a year later and is nearly as good as its predecessor, but not quite to the level of that horror masterpiece.

Part II (1981) is a well above-average sequel with a fun style all its while wisely keeping facets that made the franchise adored by horror fans everywhere.

Gushing fans must have been chomping at the bit for a follow-up film with an opening sequence that is quite lengthy.

The heroine of the first Friday, Alice Hardy (Adrienne King), takes center stage, eliciting a clever twist that must have shocked fans as she is offed less than fifteen minutes into the film- think the sequence with Drew Barrymore in 1996’s Scream for comparison.

Regardless of the reasons King would not be the star of the film (money demands or a rumored stalker), the fact of the matter is this improves the overall film adding an immediate surprise.

After this compelling opening number, things become much more familiar and predictable as the viewer is enshrined in the antics of young and horny camp counselors rushing to sunny Camp Crystal Lake (or in this installment, a neighboring camp) to set up for the impending arrival of kids.

The young adults are all beautiful, fresh-faced, and ready to be sliced to ribbons or dismembered in some fashion as the case may be.

As any horror aficionado knows, this is a major part of the appeal of slasher films, and Friday the 13th: Part II follows a familiar formula.

Paul (John Furey) and Ginny (Amy Steel) are the lead counselors- a bit more adult and responsible than the others, thus they ignore the authority’s warnings not to re-open the camp since it has only been five years since the original massacres.

As the day turns into evening, Paul teases the group with the story of the legend of Jason and how he survived his drowning only to live in the woods fending for himself and avenging the death of his mother.

Little do they know that the legend is real and Jason is lurking among the trees ready to off the group individually.

Besides Paul and Ginny, the supporting characters include sexy Terry, known to wear skimpy attire, sly Scott, who has designs on Terry, wheelchair-bound Mark, sweet and innocent, Vickie, jokester Ted, and, finally, madly in love, Jeff and Sandra, who are curious about the history of Camp Crystal Lake.

Delightfully, the character of Crazy Ralph (Walt Gorney), the comic relief of the original film, makes a heralded return to warn the youths of impending doom and gloom.

Friday the 13th: Part II mixes pranks and flirtations among many of the characters, but the audience knows full well what’s in store for each of them- save for the honorable “final girl”.

With Ginny receiving this title the others meet their fates in bloody style with interesting kills such as a throat slit by a machete while in a rope trap, a duo impaled with a spear as they engage in sex, and bludgeoning with a kitchen knife.

The final twenty minutes are quite engaging as Ginny must flee from the camp while enduring repeated obstacles preventing her safety such as a run through the woods, tripping and falling, and a failed barricade in a cabin.

A wonderful touch within this sequence is the return of Betsy Palmer (Mrs. Voorhees) in a cameo appearance as Jason sees a vision of his mother. This move successfully creates a tie-in to the original that works quite nicely as coupled with the opening sequence.

The final “jump out of your seat” moment is highly effective as Jason thought to be bested, leaps through a window for one final attack.

Interesting to note is what appear to be identical camera angles through much of the film, as the camera uses the point of view of the killer numerous times to elicit scares, and the viewer serves as the killer- reminiscent of the first film.

Additionally, camera shots of the peaceful, sunny camp and lake during the daytime are used, in contrast to the violence occurring at night.  Even the approaching car the counselor drives (a truck) is shot the same way as we see them arriving at the camp in full anticipation of a fun time.

Friday the 13th: Part II (1981) is a fun follow-up to one of the most celebrated horror films of the slasher genre and is a perfect counterpart to the original.

A viewing tip is to watch both films in sequence on perhaps a late-night horror extravaganza.

Subsequently followed by a slew of not-so-great sequels as the franchise became dated by the late 1980s, Part 2 serves as an excellent follow-up to the original using a similar style that will please fans.

The Lure-2015

The Lure-2015

Director Agnieszka Smoczynska

Starring Michalina Olszanska, Marta Mazurek

Scott’s Review #741

Reviewed April 12, 2018

Grade: B

2015’s The Lure is as odd a film as one can imagine- dreamlike and sometimes even absurd. The story mixes a strange blend of the horror genre with musical numbers, but I would wobble to the side of gothic horror for classification purposes.

Oddly enough, some of the choreography numbers are reminiscent of 2016’s La La Land, but that is where the comparisons between those films end as the former musical numbers dark and the latter cheery.

A tough film to review, The Lure is rather disjointed, but kudos for creativity and unpredictability.

Bravely directed by a female (more kudos!),  Agnieszka Smoczynska, a Polish filmmaker, the story is a cross between an autobiography of her troubled youth, and a retelling of the Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale, The Little Mermaid.

Besides the obvious Polish language content the film does not appear overly Polish- it might have been nice to be exposed to some of the cultures.

The film immediately gets off to a mysterious start as two teenage girls, later revealed to be mermaids/vampires named Silver and Golden, emerge from the water and follow a rock band back to a tacky nightclub where the band regularly performs for patrons there for the strippers.

It is sometime in the 1980s.

The girls perform music and strip, becoming an act called “The Lure”. While Golden continues to thirst for blood, Silver falls in love with a bassist causing her to yearn to be a real girl, and subsequently has surgery to remove her tail and grow real-girl legs.

As part of the fairy tale, if her intended marries someone else Silver will turn into sea foam and die.

The story is perplexing and difficult to follow, yet something is mesmerizing and escapist about it.

I wonder if Smoczynska intended the film to make total sense or left it open to a bit of interpretation. The film is a mix of fairy tales and real-life experiences.

Some portions appear to be rather dream-like, for example, the nightclub singer has thoughts or visions involving Silver and Golden, but what is unclear is whether she is experiencing reality or imagination.

Props must be given to The Lure for originality alone. The film stirs up multiple genres and creates something truly unique.

In particular, the characters of Silver and Golden are transfixing, at times they are sweet and kind, then fangs come out at a moment’s notice revealing evil and a carnivorous bloodthirst revealing a grotesque, haunting countenance.

How Smoczynska created these characters is awe-inspiring and the up-and-coming director must have a wealth of imagination deep within.

On the other hand, the plot never really comes together enough to grab hold of the viewer in a riveting way.

While Silver and Golden are clever characters and we feel some empathy for them, I also never felt completely gripped by them either. I felt no connection to any of the supporting characters either.

Any attempt at figuring out the plot will only leave the viewer frustrated. I would advise taking The Lure as an experience, not a puzzle to unravel.

The Lure (2015) has elements of immeasurable fascination and an enormous creative edge. Attempts to create a unique fable meshed with a disturbing central theme are successful.

The overall story is way too confusing for the average user and ultimately ends up dragging towards the final portion with the final climax a wee bit unsatisfying.

A brave and inventive attempt at achieving something fresh and imaginative in cinema.

Jigsaw-2017

Jigsaw-2017

Director The Spierig Brothers

Starring Matt Passmore, Tobin Bell

Scott’s Review #739

Reviewed April 9, 2018

Grade: C-

As a fan of the horror genre, and specifically of the Saw film franchise, which debuted in brutal form in 2004 and was directed by James Wan, I am sad to say that it has sadly become a lesser version of what was once clever writing mixed with astounding, tortuous kills.

Jigsaw is the eighth installment in a series that has now run out of steam. It is simply riding on the coattails of what was once its glory days.

The 2017 film can only be appreciated by die-hard fans of the series; it will be unsuccessful in attracting new fans.

Admittedly, Jigsaw does begin significantly as the viewer is thrust into the midst of a compelling rooftop police chase that results in a fleeing criminal, Edgar Munsen, being shot by detectives.

Unknown if events are connected, the action shifts to a remote barn where (in typical Saw fashion) five individuals are held captive, each with a noose around their neck.

Throughout the film, we get backstories-stories of each victim as well as a connecting story of a pathologist, Logan Nelson (Matt Passmore), his sister, and the possibility that John Kramer has either returned from the grave or a copycat killer is on the loose, emulating his shenanigans.

The basic premise and tone of 2017’s Jigsaw are similar to those of the preceding seven installments. However, this version seems a bit watered down and glossy by comparison.

My recurring thought throughout the feature was a reminiscence of a horror version of a network episodic drama- think CBS’s Criminal Minds or the like. This is not a compliment.

The camera style is of a slick production with nary a raw or authentic moment- incredibly produced with good-looking people in peril.

Fans of the previous Saw films will undoubtedly expect the now-familiar twist towards the end of the film- a clever story turn to make one character revealed to be not what they appear to be or even in cahoots with the serial killer, “Jigsaw” (John Kramer).

This quality does surface in Jigsaw, but the surprise is so lame and inexplicable that it is hardly worth mentioning.  Suffice it to say the expected resurfacing of Kramer is an absolute sham. Instead, we are fed a less-than-satisfying riddle of one character faking his death and another sequence occurring ten years earlier.

This twist might be worth its salt if better written, but the reasoning seems thrown together without much thought to staying true to the characters or history.

Other familiar elements in Jigsaw abound, so a fan of Saw, Saw II, or Saw III will undoubtedly find tidbits that will satisfy them.

The film is like a trip to McDonald’s or a neighborhood burger joint- one will more or less get what is expected.

As the barn victims are given choices via a tape-recorded message by a sinister John Kramer voice, each is given a test and must ultimately confess their sins. As fans know, Saw victims are far from innocent and always harbor a neatly tucked away secret.

Such horrific acts like a haggard young mother smothering her screaming baby and framing her husband for the deed or a thief stealing a woman’s wallet and causing her to die when her asthma medicine is missing were thought of by the writers.

Another character once sold a motorcycle with a faulty brake line to an innocent man who later crashed and was killed. These aspects are the fun in a film like Jigsaw in that the tortures the victims endure have elements of “serves him or her right”.

Another solid point about Jigsaw is the kills, which is what fans of the Saw franchise have come to know and love.

In this one, we delightfully witness a victim’s leg severed, another impaled with needles, and yet another gleefully attempting to shoot one of the other victims trapped in the barn to allow her freedom, only to realize the gun is rigged to shoot herself instead.

These are fun moments that make Jigsaw less than all bad.

Having created the eighth version of a once great franchise that introduced the world to the term “torture horror”, by 2017 has grown ultimately stale and tired with a few glimpses of former glory created in the familiarity aspects.

All great things must end, and the Saw series has more than crumbled from its former days of glory.

The Blackcoat’s Daughter-2017

The Blackcoat’s Daughter-2017

Director Oz Perkins

Starring Emma Roberts, Kiernan Shipka

Scott’s Review #732

Reviewed March 12, 2018

Grade: B+

The Blackcoat’s Daughter is an eerie 2017 independent horror film that combines various chilling elements to achieve its goal.

While slow at times, the film is primarily a fusion of the supernatural, the occult, and the psychological. It offers a unique experience and is unpredictable in nature.

Parts of the film are downright scary and spooky as religion meets satanism, always a safe bet for an unsettling experience.

Writer/Director Oz Perkins should be well on his way to a successful career in the industry with this, almost full-on artsy, film.

The action begins in a prestigious Catholic boarding school in a quiet, wintry area of upstate New York. As students (largely unseen) leave the school for a February break, Kat (Kiernan Shupka), and Rose (Lucy Boynton) are left behind when their parents do not arrive to pick them up.

While the girls hunker down for the night, hoping their parents show up the next day, a third girl, Joan (Emma Roberts), who may be a psychopath, is en route towards the school, enlisting the help of a strange married couple (Bill and Linda), whose daughter had died years ago and was the same age as Joan.

Also in the mix are two school nuns who are rumored to be Satanists.

Little is known about the town, but the fact that nobody is around making the setting a significant plus.

This may very well be due to budgetary restrictions associated with the film. Still, regardless, the use of very few characters or extras is a score, with the number of principal characters below ten.

The cold and bleak nature of the town and Joan’s stark journey create a very successful ambiance.

Many scenes throughout The Blackcoat’s Daughter are set during nighttime in relative seclusion. Given the icy texture of upstate New York in the middle of winter, the setting chosen by Perkins is spot on and quite atmospheric.

The overall story of The Blackcoat’s Daughter is peculiar and mysterious and does not always make complete sense.

In fact, by the time the film concludes and the credits roll, not much of the film adds up from a story perspective, leaving me somewhat unsatisfied.

Since Bill and Linda’s daughter looks identical to Rose, are we to assume that the events at the school occurred a decade before the events involving Joan? What ends up happening to Kat is perplexing, haunted by spirits, and forced to kill, is she healed at the end of the film? Or is Kat Joan?

Too many loose ends are left.

The film is heavy on the violence and the gore and dares not hold back in showcasing the victim’s pain and suffering before they cease to exist. More than one character lies bleeding and immobile as the killer calmly approaches to finish the deed.

Three characters are decapitated in horrific form as we later see their severed heads lined up in a boiler room. The demonic chanting “Hail, Satan!” may turn some viewers off, as would the overall storyline.

Those who feel that 1973’s The Exorcist is disturbing need not see this film as similar elements abound.

Also worthy of a quick mention is the cool, unique musical soundtrack created by singer/songwriter Elvis Perkins, brother of the director.

With goth/techno elements, the score is noticed (in a good way) at various points throughout the running time and adds to the film’s overall feel.

The Blackcoat’s Daughter (2017) succeeds as a disturbing and experimental piece of independent horror-making that will pique the interests of horror aficionados.

With plenty of blood-letting and squeamish parts, Oz Perkins knows what works. The story, though, would have been improved by a clear, definitive beginning, middle, and end, to avoid a confusing outcome.

Still, I look forward to more works from this up-and-coming director.

Happy Death Day-2017

Happy Death Day-2017

Director Christopher B. Landon

Starring Jessica Rothe, Israel Broussard

Scott’s Review #726

Reviewed February 20, 2018

Grade: C+

Happy Death Day is a 2017 horror/slasher film that cleverly incorporates the “Groundhog Day” theme into its story.

Oddly, the film was released in October instead of February, a missed marketing opportunity.

Despite a unique premise, the film is overly complicated, especially for this genre. Rather than succeeding as a late Friday night treat, Happy Death Day becomes tough to follow, leaving too many questions and puzzling thoughts in the after-effects.

We first meet snobbish and sarcastic sorority sister, Theresa “Tree” Gelbman (Jessica Rothe), as she awakens with a pounding headache and a bad attitude one morning in the dorm room of a handsome classmate, Carter Davis (Israel Broussard).

She barely remembers the drunken tryst as she haggardly goes about her morning. Today is her birthday! Irritated by the day, she dismisses her kindly roommate and her father.

She is rude to a former one-night stand, finally going to a party, where she is followed and brutally murdered by a figure wearing a campus mascot mask.

She suddenly awakens to the same morning she has just experienced!

Perplexed, Tree spends the remainder of the film on the hunt to figure out who killed her and unravel the mystery of halting the events by going on a continuous “loop” of the same night, each time uncovering more clues.

Mixed in with the events, Tree realizes she has feelings for Carter and should become a more sociable person.

Star Jessica Rothe is excellent in a breakout film role, though she had a small part in the musical La La Land in 2016.

Her chemistry with Broussard is adequate, though when we talk horror, romance is not at the top of the list, blood is.

Unfortunately, Happy Death Day offers few accurate kills or scares—the film is rated PG-13, for heaven’s sake.

A nice aside and testament to the character of Tree is her possession of both “good girl” and “bad girl” qualities. Trendy in slasher films is that the girl who parties and has sex is offed before very long, but in Happy Death Day, we are served both in the same character.

Tree is, in fact, butchered, but when brought back to life, the character eventually blossomed into the clear heroine. This is a nice twist on a traditionally written character.

I enjoyed the perpetual whodunit factor that screenwriter Scott Lobdell carves into the fabric. A bevy of suspects is introduced and the tale changes direction with each loop.

The story becomes more complex with each loop, and characters’ stories or motivations shift each time. Furthermore, a few more characters are introduced giving the story more layers.

This is both a strength and a problem—Trees professor Dr. Gregory Butler, her secret lover, is a suspect.

Is Tree’s sweet roommate, Lori, who wants nothing more than to treat her friend to a lovely birthday cupcake, too good to be true?

Things spiral out of control from a story perspective at a certain point.

What is the point of the local serial killer, John Tombs, injured and conveniently staying at the campus hospital, other than to serve as a red herring? Who is the masked killer and why do they suddenly disappear from the story? How is Tree able to seemingly change the details of her murder so much so that it ends up never happening?

The reveal of the actual killer is perfect, but how did we get to this point? By the big reveal at the end, I had stopped trying to figure out the film.

Slightly above par, Happy Death Day (2017), while spirited and reaching for something different, becomes muddled and senseless, leaving the viewer wondering how all the various “groundhog day” stories add to a satisfying conclusion.

Sadly, by the film’s conclusion, one will likely not wish to waste time bothering to care. Still, some props for creativity must be awarded.

Scream-1996

Scream-1996

Director Wes Craven

Starring Drew Barrymore, Neve Campbell, David Arquette

Scott’s Review #710

Reviewed January 5, 2018

Grade: A-

Wes Craven’s 1996 film Scream is a piece that greatly assisted in bringing the horror genre back into relevance after a long drought throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s when horror films suffered from both over-saturation and cliche-riddled messes.

Thanks to Scream, creativity and plot twists and turns returned to the forefront of good horror films, and a clever film was birthed.

Fast-forward to 2018, the film does suffer a bit from a dated 1990s look but is still great fun to watch and a treat for all classic horror buffs as the references to classic greats are endless.

The film is sectioned off nicely and gets underway quickly  (in the best sequence of the film) as Casey Becker (Drew Barrymore)  receives a flirtatious phone call while making popcorn, from a man asking her to name her favorite horror film.

The friendly game quickly turns vicious as the caller threatens to kill her boyfriend should she answer a question incorrectly.

In a clever twist (think 1960s Psycho!) Casey and her boyfriend meet deadly fates and the opening credits begin to roll.

Given the huge star, Barrymore was in 1996, this twist was all the more shocking and attention-grabbing.

The remainder of the film centers around Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), a popular California high school student, as she is pursued by an attacker known only as “Ghostface”, who dons a creepy costume and terrorizes victims via phone calls.

The small town, led by police officer Dewey Riley (David Arquette) and bitchy newswoman Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox), is determined to unmask the killer and figure out his or her motivations.

Sidney’s boyfriend, Billy (Skeet Ulrich), and other friends are along for the ride as a possible connected sub-plot involving Sidney’s deceased mother is introduced.

A romance between Dewey and Gale is also broached.

Scream is an enormous treat for fans of the horror genre as numerous references (and film clips!) of classics such as 1978’s Halloween abound throughout the film.

Other references to Friday the 13th, Prom Night, and A Nightmare On Elm Street appear during the film.

Writer, Kevin Williamson, a horror enthusiast, must have had a ball writing the screenplay that would become Scream.

In 1996, the mega-success of the film successfully not only jump-started the entire genre but also introduced younger fans of Scream to classics that were perhaps their parent’s generation and got them interested in the films.

Classic horror films are not only referenced during the film but also explained, mostly by the supporting character of Jamie, the nerdy kid who works at the video store and adores horror films.

A sequence in which he explains several “rules” of the horror genre is superlative, creative, and just great fun. He tells the teenagers at a party that anyone who drinks, has sex, or says “I will be right back”, is doomed to suffer a violent fate.

This clever writing makes Scream enormous fun to watch.

The climax of Scream is quite surprising in itself and the “great reveal” of the murderer (s) is also intelligent writing and quite the surprise. Several red herrings are produced along the way, casting suspicion on other characters who may or may not be the killers.

A small gripe of the writing is the motivations of the murderers- when the explanation is given for their killing spree, the reasoning is a bit convoluted and hard to fathom, but this is horror, and suspension of disbelief is always a necessity.

Scream is best remembered for giving the horror genre a good, hard kick in the seat of the pants and shaking all of the elements up a bit while preserving the core ideals of a good slasher film (suspense, a whodunit, and good solid kills).

Scream (1996) was followed by several sequels, some achieving better successes than others. In 2018 the film may not be quite as fresh as it once was, but is still a solid watch and memorable for relaunching a genre.

Village of the Damned-1960

Village of the Damned-1960

Director Wolf Rilla

Starring George Sanders, Barbara Shelley

Scott’s Review #701

Reviewed November 30, 2017

Grade: B

Village of the Damned is a 1960 black and white horror film released during a spectacular year for the film genre- and specifically for the horror genre.

With legendary films such as Hitchcock’s Psycho and Michael Powell’s British Peeping Tom making their debuts at the same time, what a coincidence that Village of the Damned (also British) shares the same year.

The film is a satisfying treat- certainly not on par with the aforementioned duo of masterpieces, but on its terms, it is a fine film with just enough suspense and intrigue to make it a memorable affair.

Anything in movie horror involving children is downright creepy, so German director Wolf Rilla is wise to adopt a film based on a 1957 novel entitled The Midwich Cuckoos by John Wyndham.

I adore the title and wish Rilla had kept it for the film. Alas, he did not, but the story is well-written and almost like an extended episode of The Twilight Zone or a similar television chapter from the 1960s—it just seems like more of an episodic experience.

No disrespect, of course, but the film does not contain the bombast expected from a feature film, but rather a compartmentalized, small tale.

In the sleepy little town of Midwich, England, a polarizing force suddenly and without warning overtakes the city, causing all the inhabitants to fall unconscious and into a state of inactivity.

Attempts by the military to enter the town fail, even as an airplane crashes to the ground after attempting to cross into Midwich.

As quickly as these events occur, the townspeople “wake up” and resume normalcy. Two months later, all women of childbearing years suddenly become pregnant, causing gossip and intrigue. As the years pass, the children look similar, with platinum-blonde hair, piercing eyes, and rapid growth spurts.

Furthermore, they all are telepathic and communicate with each other in this manner.

The central characters include a prominent professor, Gordon Zellaby (George Sanders), and his wife, Anthea (Barbara Shelley). They are the parents of one of the children, named David, who appears to be the leader of the other children.

As the children become increasingly menacing and intelligent as they grow older, sometimes hurting or killing other townspeople by somehow “possessing” their thoughts, Gordon must race to find a way to trap and stop the children from more dastardly deeds.

The use of black and white cinematography and the small-town setting successfully give Village of the Damned an eerie and mysterious vibe, is little or no bloodshed nor the traditional horror-themed elements- hence the above Twilight Zone reference.

The film does not need these to succeed, as the psychological mystique is compelling enough. We wonder, “What is wrong with these kids?” and “Why do they act so strangely?” “Are they possessed?” and  “Is this some weird experiment?”

The answers are never really explained in detail.

Slight negatives to the film are the only limited character development among any prominent characters such as Gordon or Anthea, and these roles are one-dimensional- the children are the stars.

Sanders and Shelley are adequately cast, but I can think of numerous other actors who could have played these parts well.

The conclusion to Village of the Damned is unspectacular, and I was left with an unsatisfied feeling, especially as related to other more satisfying aspects of the film as a whole.

I felt like a bit of potential was not reached.

Gordon merely orchestrates a big event, sacrificing himself to destroy the children, and the film ends.

Village of the Damned was followed by a 1963 sequel entitled, Children of the Damned, which was not deemed a critical nor a commercial success.

Years later, in 1995, the film was remade and directed by John Carpenter but also received poor reviews.

Don’t Look Now-1973

Don’t Look Now-1973

Director Nicolas Roeg

Starring Julie Christie, Donald Sutherland

Scott’s Review #693

Reviewed October 22, 2017

Grade: A

Don’t Look Now is an exceptional 1973 supernatural horror film that is as thought-provoking as it is intelligently written and directed.

Combined with riveting acting by famous Hollywood stars of the day, the film is simply an anomaly and must be seen to be appreciated. It is also the type of film that can be watched again and again for better clarity and exhibits the age-old “it gets better with age” comparison.

The film is rich with story, atmosphere, and cerebral elements, as well as being highly influential to horror films that followed.

An affluent married couple, John and Laura Baxter (Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie), live happily together in their English country home, raising their two children, Johnny and Christine.

After a tragic drowning incident, resulting in the death of Christine, the devastated couple relocates to Venice, after John accepts a position restoring an ancient church. Soon, Laura meets a pair of elderly sisters, one of whom is blind and claims to be clairvoyant, warning her of imminent danger and that Christine is attempting to contact her from beyond.

Don’t Look Now is hardly your standard horror film, which is the main part of its appeal- psychological in nature, the film holds only one gruesome death- not including the death of Christina, which is a terrible accident- not malicious.

Rather, director Nicolas Roeg quietly builds the suspense to a startling final sequence by using a chilling musical score to elicit a reaction from the audience. We know not what will happen, only that something sinister is bound to.

Due to the successful chemistry between Sutherland and Christie, in 1973, both cream of the crop in terms of film success and marketability, the actors deserve much credit for making Don’t Look Now both believable and empathetic.

John and Laura, each give their character a likable nature and immeasurable chemistry, which makes the audience care for them.

Despite the supernatural elements in the film, at its core, the story is quite humanistic. John and Laura have tragically lost a child and we see them deal with the painful grief associated with this loss.

The famous sex scene between the pair is shocking given the time, but also tastefully done, as Roeg uses a fragmented filming style that mixes the nudity with the couple dressing for dinner.

Visually, Don’t Look Now is a pure treat. The viewer is catapulted to the cultural and wonderful world of watery Venice, where scene after scene features gondola rides, exterior treats of the city, and filming locations such as the famous Hotel Gabrielli Sandworth and the San Nicolo dei Mendicoli church, wisely chosen as shooting locations giving the film an effective realism.

The characters of the elderly sisters, Heather and Wendy, are wonderfully cast. Hilary Mason and Clelia Matania are fantastic and believable as the mysterious duo. Seemingly kindly and eager to help, I was never really sure what the character’s true motives were.

Was Laura paying them for their assistance?

The film never reveals this information, but Heather especially contains a sinister look that shrouds her motivations in uncertainty. Fabulous actress Mason shines in her important role.

As John begins to “see things”, the use of the color red becomes very important. Christine died wearing a red coat and John sees a child wearing a red coat walking around the city, but cannot make out her face.

When he sees Laura and the sisters at a funeral, we begin to question his sanity. But are the sisters up to something and attempting to trick him or is his mind playing tricks on him?

The terrific conclusion will only lead the viewer to more questions.

Don’t Look Now (1973) is a unique, classic horror film, with incredible thematic elements, an eerie psychological story, fine acting, and location sequences that will astound.

Mixing the occult with an unpredictable climax, the film is influenced by Alfred Hitchcock and succeeds in achieving a blood-curdling affair sure to be discussed upon the chilling conclusion.

The film is non-linear in storytelling, which only makes it more challenging to watch and appreciate.

Grindhouse: Planet Terror-2007

Grindhouse: Planet Terror-2007

Director Robert Rodriguez

Starring Rose McGowan, Freddy Rodriguez

Scott’s Review #692

Reviewed October 15, 2017

Grade: B-

The umbrella title of “Grindhouse” is part of a 2007 double-feature, one film directed by Quentin Tarantino (Death Proof), and the other directed by Robert Rodriguez (Planet Terror).

The gimmick was part of an attempt at something novel and also book-ending fictional trailers within the films. The term “grindhouse” refers to a cinematic specialty of either B movies or exploitation films- largely during the 1970s.

While Planet Terror gets credit for being unique and fun, it is oftentimes too cartoon-like and rather over the top throughout.

The premise of Planet Terror is not one to be taken seriously- as our heroine, Cherry Darling (Rose McGowan), quits her stripper job vowing to move on to bigger and better things, she runs into her ex-boyfriend, El Wray (Freddie Rodriguez), and the two teams up to lead a group of rebels, who are fleeing for their lives after a vicious zombie outbreak.

The attack was caused by a group of military officials, led by the vicious Lieutenant Muldoon (Bruce Willis).

The film contains an undeniable retro feel- the sets and the props traverse back to the 1970s in style and look, however, characters do use cellular phones.

Rodriguez attempts to make the film an homage or a throwback to a different time in cinema- this feat is quite impressive and the film is a marvel from a stylized perspective.

Another positive is that the film is reminiscent, by the camera styles and angles, of an actual 1970s film, with grainy elements and a comforting old-style texture, which works.

The plot, though, is the source of frustration, and many aspects of the film are just plain silly. The actors play way over the top as they were probably directed by Rodriguez to do, but the result is too much like watching a cartoon rather than a piece of art.

Rodriguez appears to be copying many aspects of Quentin Tarantino films- specifically, the mixture of violence with camp, although these attempts do not always work.

The acting and casting are fine. Bruce Willis shines in the lead villain role and plays demented to the hilt. Unquestionably “borrowed” by Rodriguez through Tarantino, Willis, who was dynamic in Pulp Fiction, knows how to do his thing well in films such as this.

Muldoon is quite a different character than boxer Butch Coolidge in 1994’s masterpiece, Pulp Fiction, but the acting style is the same.

Stars such as Josh Brolin, Kurt Russell, and Rosario Dawson also make appearances so the film is assuredly a star-studded affair.

The casting of McGowan and Freddy Rodriguez as the leads is acceptable and the pair make a decent screen coupling. Still, her artificial leg which doubles as a deadly machine gun, and his maniacal persona seem somewhat forced and, again, way over the top.

Planet Terror was a moderate box office success upon release in 2007, but watching the film in 2017, ten years later, unfortunately, some of the clusters have been tarnished and the gimmick is not as catchy as at the time of release.

Still, a decent offering in the horror, cartoon, and campy genres, but much better films exist, like anything by Tarantino.

Mother!-2017

Mother! -2017

Director Darren Aronofsky

Starring Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer

Scott’s Review #687

Reviewed October 4, 2017

Grade: A

Mother! is an intense, disturbing, and brilliant 2017 work by acclaimed director Darren Aronofsky.

Having crafted left-of-center works such as 2000’s Requiem for a Dream, 2008’s The Wrestler, and 2010’s Black Swan, I shudder to think this film rivals the other in the insanity department.

With four principal characters portrayed by Hollywood mainstays, this film generated much buzz upon its release.

The film is thought-provoking and analytical, and we will discuss it after the conclusion. I appreciate the complex watches and Mother! succeeds in spades.

The film is set entirely within the confines of one enormous house in the middle of a vast field of land. Aronofsky never reveals the location, adding mystery to the already intriguing premise.

A young couple known only as Him (Javier Bardem) and Mother (Jennifer Lawrence) cheerfully enjoy married life together and seem very much in love. He is a renowned author suffering from writer’s block, and his mother fixed the house after it had burned long ago.

One day, a Man (Ed Harris) arrives looking for a place to stay. While Him is delighted by the visitor and encourages Man to stay, the mother is not as pleased.

When Man’s wife, Woman (Michelle Pfeiffer) arrives, the houseguests turn Him and mother’s lives upside down. This is merely the beginning of a complex puzzle.

As the plot unfolds, Mother! is oozing with one bizarre event after the other. Mother witnesses unsettling images such as a beating heart within the walls and a bloodstain on the floor that will not go away.

When relatives of a Man and a Woman overtake the house, and a violent event occurs, things go from dark to downright chaotic.

Giving too many plot points away would ruin the element of surprise, making Mother! a difficult film to review. The film is polarizing and mesmerizing, and each of the principal characters’ motivations can be analyzed and questioned.

Why do he and his mother react differently to the visitors? What manifests their resentment towards the mother?

Each actor gives a compelling turn, and Aronofsky admits that the mother’s character is the one he most relates to. Logically, one might assume that Bardem’s Him might receive that honor since the character is a famous writer. How strange, and this revelation by the director will only result in more character analysis.

How wonderful to see Michelle Pfeifer back in the forefront of a Hollywood film—it seems eons have passed since we last saw her grace the silver screen, and she is back with a vengeance.

Her bitchy portrayal is purely delicious, and she encompasses Woman with the perfect amount of venom, toughness, and mystery. As she icily quizzes mother about her intentions of starting a family, she slowly immerses herself in mother’s life without missing a beat.

The film is unconventional and layered with symbolism and differing interpretations. Is Aronofsky’s message biblical? Is it political? Or could it reference the obsessions everyday folk have with celebrities?

After much pondering, all three possibilities came to mind. The biblical message seems the most solid and plausible explanation, but with Aronofsky films, the pleasure is in the analysis.

The film’s final act is particularly macabre, as the action has exclusively focused on the four principal characters until this point, and the setting is mainly bright.

A slow burn, if you will, suddenly, all hell breaks loose as mobs, blood, fire, death, and darkness take over. The brutality and cannibalism involved will churn anyone’s stomach.

Quickly note the lurid closeups of Jennifer Lawrence’s face during most scenes. Indeed, the camera loves her, but more is happening here. Is the intention to make the viewer focus more on her character or to sympathize more with her character?

Mother! has stirred controversy among film-goers. Some have ravished its elements and themes, while others have reviled and revolted against it.

Time will tell if Mother! (2017) holds up well, but my hope and guess would be that it will become a film studied in film schools everywhere.