Rate the Last Movie You Saw

[dannyboy121070]

The first two TERRIFIER films are fun, but the second was sooooo long. Way longer than a slasher film should ever be. Going to see the third this weekend, hopefully.

[sholloman81]

Watched the Terrifier.

Hack, slash, and not much going on. There where some creepy scenes, interesting things, but overall not much to be excited about.

Have never seen any of the Terrifier films and have always wondered if they were just one big gore fest. I'm sure that I may watch one at some point, but I'm not in a hurry.

[Ben Staad]

Watched the Terrifier.

Hack, slash, and not much going on. There where some creepy scenes, interesting things, but overall not much to be excited about.

[dannyboy121070]

I went on a bit of a Mike Mignola bender over the past two nights. First I bought the new Hellboy film, HELLBOY: THE CROOKED MAN.
MV5BOWNmZTQ0Y2UtNDJhZC00Y2MwLWFjOWQtM2ZmNjFmMTU5Mjg5XkEyXkFqcGc@._V1_.jpg
I had low expectations...the film is obviously low-budget, and went straight to home viewing, skipping theaters. But it cost twenty bucks, cheaper than it would have been to see it in a theater, I'm a HUGE Mike Mignola fan, and Amazon sent me a six dollar digital film voucher, so the stars aligned.

Annnnd.....It was WAY better than I could have hoped.

The smaller scale and budget suited the story perfectly. The source material is one of my favorite Hellboy stories, basically an Appalachian folk-horror tale, and the adaptation is fairly faithful. The effects, aside from a jinky-looking giant CGI spider in the opening scene, are well done, and the actors all acquit themselves well. I'm sure this will be a one-and-done, but I wouldn't mind seeing more from the same team. Your mileage may vary, but I really enjoyed it, and I can see myself watching it again.

That put me in the mood for DRAWING MONSTERS, a documentary about Mike Mignola's career and the creation and rise of Hellboy. Really well made, and I loved it.
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT9hBH9w1NbOhkMT1S4Vxo24HBU7GXKLLeeEA&s.jpg

[dannyboy121070]

I watched THE FRANKENSTEIN COMPLEX on Prime the other night, a great documentary about special make-up effects in Horror films. Lots of fun.
711oTz4Ci6L._AC_UF894,1000_QL80_.jpg
Last night was an unlikely double-feature: The new Max movie CADDO LAKE, which was really good. Do yourself a favor, and watch it without seeing a trailer or reading a description. Just let it unfold. I figured out what was going on about halfway through, but the film was still absorbing enough to hold my interest, and the ending pulled it all together perfectly.
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQVrE2oLqLfZOXRjpMGFN0-rI8WOXDzaUtotQ&s.jpg
Then I watched a strange 1940 picture on TCM called YOU'LL FIND OUT, which features bandleader Kay Kyser playing a 21st birthday gig at your typical old dark house, with party guests Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi, and Peter Lorre. As weird and fun as I expected, this one is highly recommended if you're in the mood for an oddball bit of fluff. The musical numbers were a lot of fun.
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSTE3rwl7jDw98rDvB2_72cxkDEWN5yeOnwUg&s.jpg

[Sock Monkey]

HALLOWEEN HORROR MOVIE #2:

what-you-wish-for_movie_poster.jpg

WHAT YOU WISH FOR (2023): I always try to include some genre-adjacent thriller movies into the mix during Halloween to break up the regular ghosts and monsters and whatnot. I find this especially helfpul when cranking through four or more horror movies a week. My first thriller selection is this film that I happened to miss when it was playing at Fantastic Fest last year. While I heard that this wasn't a stunner, I've always enjoyed Nick Stahl in almost everything I've seen him in (even in DISTURBING BEHAVIOR, which I really need to revisit) and was happy to see him return to acting after such a long absence, especially in WHAT JOSAIH SAW (2021). Now, that film had its flaws, but it had a wicked mean streak and it has grown in my appreciation over time. Unfortunately, this one, for me, toes the line between working well and just not working at all. I'll keep plot details light because going in as blind as possible is always recommended. Stahl plays a chef on the skids from a gambling debt seeking some relief from an old, and rather prosperous, friend in an unnamed Latin American country, only to find himself caught up in the friend's nefarious doings. First, I will say that Stahl continues to handle himself well and the centerpiece of the movie, while not perfect, gets darn close to firing on all cylinders. Unfortunately, the beginning of the film fails to set up what the ending needs to pay off, leaving the movie to finish on a deflated note rather than the much needed kick in the ribs it aims for. The movie is frustrating precisely because you can see how good it could have been. I'm still rather torn on the movie and can't quite decide where it'll land on repeat viewings, descending down or moving up despite its flaws. GRADE: C-

[dannyboy121070]

Last night was Shudder's new V/H/S Beyond, which is getting hyped like crazy, but was unremarkable aside from the first story. Mike Flanagan wrote the last story, which his wife directed, but it did nothing for me.

[dannyboy121070]

The Halloween train rolls on, with the original Tobe Hooper 'SALEM'S LOT mini-series on Max.

It holds up a lot better than i expected. Definitely the best of the three versions that have been filmed. The cast acquits themselves quite well, with the great James Mason being the standout as a spectacularly smarmy Straker, and David Soul and Ed Flanders making the most of their roles. The first appearance of Barlow still managed to make me jump....his look is a strange departure from the source material, but Hooper managed to create an iconic vampire that stills commands attention close to five decades later, so...well done.

There were a few gaps in logic that I forgot about, that seem to have been created in an attempt to throw in a few more scares, but those were easily overlooked. I appreciated how Hooper had enough time to show that there were other people in the town, something the latest remake failed miserably at, but most of those townspeople just appear and are never seen again. (Hooper makes a big deal about introducing Weasel, who has a few important scenes, but then we never see him again. Same for the husband and his cheating wife...they glom up a lot of screen time, but then vanish.)

The end features some spectacular set design with the Marsten house...I never noticed before that the horns and antlers that adorn the walls all had dead dogs impaled on them. Amazing detail.

My biggest disappointment with all of the adaptations so far (Although I may or may not be correct about the Rob Lowe mini-series, which I only saw once about 20 years ago) is the omission of the hinted-at details about Hubie Marsten's Satanism, and his attempts to bring Barlow to America decades earlier. (For a great literary followup to this, I recommend Sean Hogan's TWILIGHT'S LAST SCREAMING, which finds THERE WILL BE BLOOD's Daniel Plainview being drawn into the plot to bring Barlow stateside.)

Overall, it holds up well. The three hours flew by at a fast clip, and I'm glad I revisited this childhood favorite.

[dannyboy121070]

Seeing the remake made me want to watch the original Tobe Hooper mini-series, which is streaming on Max, so that'll be my film tonight. They also have the "sequel", A RETURN TO 'SALEM'S LOT, which I'll probably keep taking a pass on.

[Sock Monkey]

I, also, have started the Halloween viewing for the season. I was eager to see the Max premiere of 'SALEM'S LOT on Thursday, and it was pretty much what I expected. Kind of a Cliffs Notes version of the novel, which I don't think would make much sense if you haven't already read the source material. It is almost a "Greatest hits" clip show: Dead kid knocking at the window, corpse sitting up in the morgue, Barlow reveal, Barlow confronts Priest....You've seen, and read, those scenes done better. The film sat on a shelf for two years, and I can see why....It just feels cheap and small. The running time is less than two hours, so you don't really get to know any of the characters, and by the time you get to the "reveal" that the town is virtually deserted, you'll be like "It was deserted anyway! They never showed anybody!". The Director said he turned in a three-hour cut that Warner edited the hell out of....Since it went straight to streaming, why not just show that version, or make it available as an extra? It almost HAS to be better. The cast is a mixed bag...It's always nice to see William Sadler, and Alfre Woodard does a nice job, as usual. Lewis Pullman, as Ben Mears, is as expressionless and charisma-free as his father, Bill, and Barlow looks just like THE NUN without a habit. King fans will want to check it out, but I can't recommend it.

Last night, my Horror-hating teen agreed to watch a Halloween movie with me, so I let him choose. He picked the Director's Cut of DOCTOR SLEEP, which I enjoyed just as much as the theatrical cut. I think this film, which tanked at the box-office, will grow to be more appreciated in time....I think it is one of the best King adaptations, and Mike Flanagan did a great job of threading the needle and making it palatable to fans of the book AND the film of THE SHINING. I like this movie so much I could probably watch it again tonight.

The editing of SALEM"S LOT for streaming doesn't make much sense, unless they plan on promoting an extended version down the road. Either way, it seems like a missed opportunity to let the director's vision speak for itself. I feel like this is the 47th adaptation of SALEM'S LOT (okay, it's really like the fourth?) and it just seems like maybe that well doesn't need to drawn from again.

Agree about the director's cut of DOCTOR SLEEP. We watched it last Halloween season, along with Kubrick's THE SHINING, and I thought that SLEEP deserved better than what it got during its theatrical. I concur about it growing in appreciation over time, even if it is just an appreciation of Rebecca Ferguson as Rose the Hat.

[dannyboy121070]

I, also, have started the Halloween viewing for the season. I was eager to see the Max premiere of 'SALEM'S LOT on Thursday, and it was pretty much what I expected. Kind of a Cliffs Notes version of the novel, which I don't think would make much sense if you haven't already read the source material. It is almost a "Greatest hits" clip show: Dead kid knocking at the window, corpse sitting up in the morgue, Barlow reveal, Barlow confronts Priest....You've seen, and read, those scenes done better. The film sat on a shelf for two years, and I can see why....It just feels cheap and small. The running time is less than two hours, so you don't really get to know any of the characters, and by the time you get to the "reveal" that the town is virtually deserted, you'll be like "It was deserted anyway! They never showed anybody!". The Director said he turned in a three-hour cut that Warner edited the hell out of....Since it went straight to streaming, why not just show that version, or make it available as an extra? It almost HAS to be better. The cast is a mixed bag...It's always nice to see William Sadler, and Alfre Woodard does a nice job, as usual. Lewis Pullman, as Ben Mears, is as expressionless and charisma-free as his father, Bill, and Barlow looks just like THE NUN without a habit. King fans will want to check it out, but I can't recommend it.

Last night, my Horror-hating teen agreed to watch a Halloween movie with me, so I let him choose. He picked the Director's Cut of DOCTOR SLEEP, which I enjoyed just as much as the theatrical cut. I think this film, which tanked at the box-office, will grow to be more appreciated in time....I think it is one of the best King adaptations, and Mike Flanagan did a great job of threading the needle and making it palatable to fans of the book AND the film of THE SHINING. I like this movie so much I could probably watch it again tonight.

[Sock Monkey]

With October here, the Halloween season if finally upon us and even more of a reason to watch more horror movies!

HALLOWEEN HORROR MOVIE #1:



I'm always try to work older horror movies into our Halloween viewing slate and this year I have a whole selection of black and white horror movies that we'll be watching. The first is this interesting 1960 film (also known as Horror Hotel) starring Christopher Lee. The film is about a young college student (played by Venetia Stevenson) who is sent by her professor (Christopher Lee) to an almost forgotten town in Massachusetts to research a paper on witchcraft only to uncover sinister happenings. I don't hear this film discussed much, either as a forgotten classic or a necessary benchmark in Lee's long career in the genre, and honestly after watching I can understand why. The plot is paper-thin and feels stretched out even during its scant 76 minute runtime. The ending is pretty cool, though and that poster is pretty awesome and much better than the cover to the disc I have. As is often the case with some of these older horror films, subtlety was not a consideration so most elements are blatantly telegraphed ahead of time, some even in the same scene. However, it doesn't get the credit for what rightfully deserves as it plot points bear a bit of resemblance to another Lee flick, The Wicker Man. Now, to be honest, The Wicker Man does this much better, but it was interesting to see this thread. By the end, I wound up quite a bit of fun with the movie and really enjoyed it, even if it ultimately feels like a lesser film in the history of horror.

For those interested in such things, I watched this via the VCI remastered blu-ray that was released back in 2018. I think I picked this up at a clearance sale for a few bucks and it was well worth it. Besides a few minutes at the beginning of the film, the remastered transfer was pretty nice. The audio mix for the dialogue was clear but rather quiet so we had to put on the subtitles to catch everything. If you can get this on the cheap, I'd recommend it. Otherwise it looks like it might be streaming on Kanopy, Tubi, and AMC+.

Grade: C+

[Sock Monkey]

LESLIE VERNON was a great film! IN A VIOLENT NATURE is nothing like that....the slasher is basically Zombie Jason, so her never speaks, and the time we spend with him is mostly us watching him walk slowly through the woods. It almost felt like a practical joke on the audience.

Sounds like I'll be steering clear of IN A VIOLENT NATURE then. Doesn't quite sound like my jam. I'm happy to hear that you liked LESLIE VERNON and it makes me want to dig out my old DVD and revisit soon. Probably won't be for a while, though. I'm in the process of finalizing my Halloween viewing list and don't think I'll be able to slot it in as it's already ambitious considering my schedule.

[dannyboy121070]

I'm not a big fan of slashers in general. In fact, it's my least favorite of the horror subgenres. In this regard, the movie didn't really pique my interest, though I was a little swayed by all the high praise it received. I tend to agree with your point about not wanting to know the slasher's perspective, but I will give some praise to 2006's Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon which is horror-comedy(ish) about a documentary crew who are following a new killer who is trying to make a name for himself in the world of slashers. It's been a very long time since I've watched this so I'm not entirely sure how well it holds up, but I remember having a pretty good time with the film.

LESLIE VERNON was a great film! IN A VIOLENT NATURE is nothing like that....the slasher is basically Zombie Jason, so her never speaks, and the time we spend with him is mostly us watching him walk slowly through the woods. It almost felt like a practical joke on the audience.

[Sock Monkey]

Not surprised to hear that about IN A VIOLENT NATURE. I love horror movies but have been somewhat uninterested in this one from the get-go. Personally, the last thing I want to know is Jason's (that sort of slashers) perspective or feelings. He's one of those characters that works better when unknowable IMO. I have a feeling this is also the route that the Crystal Lake series is going to take, if it ever comes to pass.

I'm not a big fan of slashers in general. In fact, it's my least favorite of the horror subgenres. In this regard, the movie didn't really pique my interest, though I was a little swayed by all the high praise it received. I tend to agree with your point about not wanting to know the slasher's perspective, but I will give some praise to 2006's Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon which is horror-comedy(ish) about a documentary crew who are following a new killer who is trying to make a name for himself in the world of slashers. It's been a very long time since I've watched this so I'm not entirely sure how well it holds up, but I remember having a pretty good time with the film.