Island Of Lost Souls

Again, kinda feel like an ass for not seeing this sooner!

Originally produced by Paramount yet somehow finding it's way to the Universal Monsters Classic Collection in the 90s, Island Of Lost Souls is a damn good movie. Made slightly before the Hays code went into effect this is one of the most grotesque and disturbing horror films you can find from that era. Concerning a shipwrecked man named Edward who gets rather unceremoniously dumped on the island of Dr. Moreau and after quickly discovering the sadistic doctor's experiments on animals has to find his way out alive. But the madman has plans and aspirations of his own in a truly gross and unsettling test of his most prized experiment Lota to see if the change from beast to human can go...all the way, shall we say. I can't even express in words how easily this film can get under your skin, and the worst part is it doesn't take much provocation for your mind to start imagining such gruesome surgeries and to really peer into the mind of Dr. Moreau. Admittedly he's played to perfection by Charles Laughton who if you really pay attention to any of the actors, more specifically him and Kathleen Burke as Lota, they put so much into these roles through body language alone and it rewards your attention. He plays this sick, demented, totally unshakeable in his work scientist and to see him just study Lota with Edward in such a voyeuristic tendency, his utter dismay at the thought of his horrific experiemnts potentially not working, his chilling delivery of the line "Do you know what it means to feel like God?", just eeeuuugghh! He freaks me right the hell out! Fantastic performance and really an unsung great actor our Charles was. And like I said Kathleen Burke as Lota is lord where do I even start, she's undoubtedly a tragic character who's went through I don't even know what to become the woman she is and again a lot of the performance is in her body lamguage. I know people will get hung up on the more sexualized aspects of her feline nature and dress, but she comes off so sweet and curious and quite gentle. That scene where she views herself in a mirror and you can see the tears filling her eyes...that hits like a fucking BRICK, I will remember that for a very long time to come! And don't even get me started on Kathleen being typecasted and only ventured in the domain of filmmaking for about 6 years, she's acting her heart out here in her first movie role no less, and yeah I know the movie is gonna be 100 years old relatively soon but goddamn it I'm upset over that! They are easily the highlights of the entire picture and I can strongly recommend watching it just on the backs of them two though of course the rest of the cast does well. Richard Arlen is quite a strapping fella and conveys the horror and intelligemce when dealing with such a sociopath very well. And of course like everyone else I have to shoutout Bela Lugosi in this film, even despite it being a very minimal role it's still a memorable performance and visual, my almost lifelong stance as a fan not withstanding. It's a very visually similar film to The Most Dangerous Game, an island, a dense jungle, the fotress of the main antagonist, but it still works and the set design is rich. Another interesting note is the film score is dead silent, you hear music at the very beginning and end but no musical accompaniment which admittedly heightens the horror and uneasy tone. But yeah this is a standout movie that I know is considered more a minor classic, but I can strongly urge people to watch it. High recommendation, 4 stars, 8.5/10!

That was a fun little trip, I know I'll have to find more time to write reviews in the future cause it still is an enjoyable and gratifying experience. Definite new release next week so tune in for that and as always be safe!

Sinners

Fwack me sideways that was a great damn movie!

Not to like pat myself on the back or anything but I just sure know what I like and I know how to pick em'! I saw the trailer and the simple concept of Michael B. Jordan fighting what looked like daemons and I was pretty much sold but I got oh so much more than that! Set in 1930s Mississippi we follow the Moore brothers who come back home and open their own club while getting back in touch with all the people they left behind before well, it gets very From Dusk Till Dawn. And what I appreciate so much is they don't rush this by a hot damn minute, there be no weak ass setup just to get to the survival horror but instead rock solid buildup where you kinda forget the movie is heading in that direction watching all these characters who've had history reconnect. It's great stuff and the period piece setting with heavy emphasis on blues music as the score really embeds you in that time period, and it doesn't shirk away from the unpleasant realities even if it doesn't come right out and say it. Michael B. Jordan does fantastic working playing both brothers Stack and Smoke, honestly to the point I just kinda forgot it was the same actor cause I just saw the characters with Smoke being the more aggressive business type and Stack being the silver tongued devil which is a good mix. But the real star in my opinion is Miles Caton in his first role as a young man named Sammie just wanting to sing the blues and gets hired to perform, holy moly is he good in this with a fantastic voice both speaking and singing the man just has incredible talent and I sure hope I get to see him in more roles soon! Jack O'Connell is our villain here not as a demon from the bowels of hell but rather a vampire who has his eyes set on Sammie, and without any major tropes of horror movies is effectively creepy and a real threat, you don't know who he is or where he came from or what his ultimate goal is with Sammie and it makes your mind race with possibilities! Jayme Lawson, Hailey Steinfeld, and Wunmy Mosaku play the holy trinity of love interests for each of our protagonists bringing a fair bit of heart and no small amount of attraction, each very striking and memorable, and the romance angle while more on the side is a welcome addition to the overall story. The production design is top notch from the clothes to the cars, the cinematography has some dat look gud moments for sure, Ryan knows how to make a movie engaging and interesting visually, and the muuuuussssiiiccccc! Ohh when I tell you hearing Sammie perform nearly made me just shout out in that theater "GOOD GOD ALMIGHTY!" I tell you no lie. I'm a sucker for blues and there ain't no heavy metal without blues (something the movie directly connects) so soundtrack alone fffffucking 12/10! The horror elements are very good without getting in your face, in fact somehow I will never know how this movie made an irish jig the most heathen thing which is actually kinda funny cause the movie could maybe just maybe be considered a musical. It's weird man but I love it and it did not detract from anything. I love how it starts, I love how it goes, I love how it ends, I am practically begging to the summits of heaven and the depths of hell that this movie not only does extremely well but gets a very large fanbase. I fully believe it deserves it! The film truly does it's own thing even with similar elements from other movies and I have no problem saying we already got a contender for top 10 of the year. So glowing 4 stars from me, 9/10, and alas this will be the last new movie for the month but I have something special planned to both begin and end the birthday week. 

Wolf Man

Okay, decent start to the year!

Now am I just a little tiny bit of a Universal Monsters fan? Well I'm the only critic who actually liked Sofia Boutella's The Mummy so you could say mayyyyybe, but fanboy or not this was an interesting movie. I'm sure people will do what they do best on the internet, bitching and moaning, about how fundamentally different this iteration is but I got news for you nightshade if you want a classic werewolf movie I recommend gazing at the last 90 years of cinema! It's 2025 mothertruckers they gotta do something original, and original is what we got! Set in a remote area of Oregon a father, mother, and daughter traverse to a very isolated farm to gather and sort the effects of a dead relative, but on the way get thrashed by a rabid animal that stands on two legs and pretty soon poppa ain't looking so good. Now the crux of this movie believe it or not is a drama with horror elements, and if you can stretch your disbelief more it...actually kinda works. We spend enough time with this family unit to get to know them, their dynamic, and and their feelings before we even get to the mist filled forests of Oregon and the slow transformation of our main character takes the tragic lens of werewolves to a whole other level and area. And some would argue it takes away all the mysticism of werewolves, equating it more to a disease akin to zombies but I don't hold any grievances with that! There's no shot of the full moon, there's no full on transformation sequence, there is barely a body count, and yet! Despite it all is an enjoyable film. Now I had a smidge of faith due to the director Leigh Whannell who also helmed The Invisible Man which I loved to the moon and back, and that fluid tilting camera style mixed with some pretty slick cinematography especially when we get more or less "wolf vision" carries over. It's a very good looking yet seemingly low budget film, hell the vast majority of the movie takes place between three locations that are throwing distance from each other and a very minimal cast, so I feel it could potentially make some profit. Christopher Abbott and the relationship with the daughter played by Matilda Firth singlehandedly made me want to see everyone make it out, and God bless him for going through the painstaking process of prosthetics! Julia Gardner also nails the emotional state from grief stricken to survive no matter what, and you could make an argumemt the movie is more about her than Chris but I'll leave that for you to decide. The actors didn't slack, they commit and wanted to give some dimension to a monster movie and coupled with the script and direction, I feel they succeeded! It's a modern reimagining that doesn't look down on the original or try to surpass it, but take it down a different avenue with a unique story. I respect that, I can recommend it too. 3 stars, 7/10, thumbs up from me!

The Wolfman

We're really keeping it in the family this week.

I've been aware of this version for some time perhaps even since it's release back in 2010, and by all accounts it seems a miracle I was able to watch it at all. It's very worthy to note this was a tumultous project to even get off the ground beginning in 2006, filming completed in 2008, but the film didn't get released until two years later with a constant search for a director and yet through it all come hell or high water Benicio Del Toro was going to be in this movie. That's some commendable ass behavior that seems rarer than a blue moon these days, he even had a producing credit, with great affinity for the 1941 original so a passion project this absolutely was for him. Taking place in 1891 England actor Lawrence Talbot returns to his home in light of his brother being murdered, and upon investigation is marked by the very creature that eviscerated his relative, leading a great many to hunt him down. This is undoubtedly a movie on it's own, yes it has sprinklings of references to The Wolf Man but ultimately does it's own original story throughout which is commendable. Being a period piece it's staggeringly accurate to the time and every penny can be seen on screen, with multiple effectively atmospheric shots in the forest that look beautiful at times, almost creating a canvas of gothic horror in a landscape where such a thing was as antiquated as the time period itself. The acting is decent, they are commited to the roles and while nothing big or bombastic is presented I appreciate the efforts all the same. Benicio is a solid leading man and big time props for him going through the special effects makeup which reportedly took 4 hours to complete, which also means brownie points for not going full CG all the time and only is used when necessary. This is one of Anthony Hopkins' more subdued performances yet even then it's easy to get involved with his character. I do believe this is the earliest film I've seen of Emily Blunt probably before she became famous and indeed it took me a hot second to recognize that was her, and she probably has the most pathos of all the characters. Again took me a brief second to recognize Hugo Weaving as an inspector who already has Lawrence pinned for the murders, and while he isn't in the movie much he does solid work and is a good opponent for Benicio to play against. I will say straight up hands down, easily the most gory and bloody werewolf movie I've ever seen and that's to be expected with special effects master Rick Baker on the production, and coincidence if ever there friggin' was one Rick won an Academy Award for best makeup for two damn werewolf movies, this one and An American Werewolf In London. Do not ask me how that works, the universe is a funny thing. Yet with all the positives present there's always gotta be one negative that keeps rearing it's ugly head, and I fully blame this on when the movie was made. God...damn it this movie is packed to the ever loving gills with jumpscares, predictable as shit, and drags the rating down because of it! I hate it with a passion. And from what I've seen the reception couldn't be more down on the movie, and while I'll say it's just okay maybe others can get more out of it than me. Clearly there are positives to be seen, but the scare factor is tired and the story and script probably needed just a tiny bit more polish to be really good if not great, but I can still say I'm happy I saw it. 2 stars, 6.5/10, let's hope for better tomorrow!

Werewolf Of London

Welcome to the world's first werewolf movie.

Not a bad way to kick off the new year at all! Released in 1935 during Universal's first horror cycle Werewolf Of London centers on a botanist professor who uncovers an extremely rare plant in Tibet before being attacked by someone or more something, and upon returning to London he soon finds he has a strange reaction to moonlight. Now obviously the legend of lycanthropy has been around for some time before this movie and indeed it is a more humble telling than the infinitely more popular Wolf Man film from 1941, but it's still pretty good. Henry Hull as Wilfred has a smidge of the tragic curse that later would be given a much wider breadth with Lon Chaney Jr., but the performance is almost more akin to a Jekyll and Hyde situation where he's a very high class well dressed and spoken man, but when the wolf form takes shape and actually looks pretty awesome I'll say he wears more simple shabby clothes wandering the dark streets of London with a desire to kill yet still walks and acts like a human. It's interesting to see how it began before the trope evolved. Another excellent example of the movie is Warner Oland probably best known to film buffs as Charlie Chan in the early 1930s who plays almost a Van Helsing type character who is familiar with the legend of werewolves and seeks to help the afflicted professor rather than destroy him, he has such a great presence and I find it a crying shame he passed away in 1938 because from what I saw he was a very good actor. Valerie Hobson was a pleasant familiar face to see as Wilfred's wife Lisa, and I gotta say for a 1930s movie she is not at all a damsel or weak willed woman she says what she wants, does what she wants, and is taking no nonsense from man or woman which was great! The look of the film is simple but effective, there's no sprawling sets but each is distinctive and fits that grimy seedy London atmosphere which contradicts nicely with the more swanky socialite gathering homes of the high and mighty. Though mind you it does not take a positive light to any single one of the sharp dressed rich, really painting them as vacuous and idiotic for some light humor. In fact the only real criticism I can give the movie is we spend just a little too long focusing on these ancillary characters instead of say Wilfred or Lisa, the film has brief tangents so I think they were still ironing out their scripts. I mean hell at this point the vast majority of Universal Monster movies were based on literary previously established works that they didn't need to tinker with much, so it's a small complaint. Definitely a minor classic in this catalogue but for lovers of monster movies it's another fine addition to the collection. I give it 2.5 stars, 7/10, and we're jumping 75 years in the future tomorrow so stay tuned.

Nosferatu (2024)

I'm quite happy with it.

Perfectly balancing the silent classic and Bram Stoker's influential novel, Robert Eggers brings a chilling beauty and ample horror in this modern remake that despite me seeing now 3 iterations of the same story I can safely say each was compelling and unique in their own way. Easily the coup de grace of the whole film is Eggert's directing and the superb cinematography that even makes this born and bred texan feel the chill in the midnight air, some may call it artsy, some may call it over the top, but you cannot deny the vision and mastery of it all. But don't let that statement lead you to believe it's just a visual feast with little else, case in point for the acting side of things Lily-Rose Depp could not have brought it harder to this role and in all the Nosferatu adaptations Ellen is truly the hero and alongside Willem Dafoe's Professor Eberhart are a formidable duo for the Count. Speaking of which Bill Skarsgård as Orlok showcases the true power and terror of the vampyre, and bonus brownie points for actually sticking to the Bram Stoker description of Dracula which only one other adaptation has achieved. Nicholas Hoult as Hutter does fine work and even what many would say are ancillary characters like with his friend Friedrich played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson no one feels unimportant and their stories are strong. Far far from filler in my estimation. They know when to hold onto a shot, how to transition, what the set designers and costumers add to the overall ambience is nothing short of award worthy to me, and the score while not entirely complex certainly adds to the tension wonderfully. With such an ecletic director each project is filled with passion and attention to detail so you're in for a ride no doubt! Though I find it funny that the one term that was intangibly sewn onto the word of mouth I was hearing about this film was "horny", and there isn't much in terms of nudity gratuitous or otherwise and indeed only scarce parts of sexual friction, to where I'm wondering if that's my overall asexual sensibilities rearing it's head or if people got swept away in the romantic overtones common to the vampire story to a high extreme here. I will admit I felt like a burden walking into the cinema on Christmas Day because while my disinterest and bordering disdain for the holiday still persists, the employees had better stuff to do. Yet I walked out pretty happy with the movie, it was easily the most packed screening room I've been in since Joker honestly, and what a fantastic way to end the whole year. I'll give it a solid 3 stars, 8.5/10, and I wish to thank all of you for another year of hearing my rambling and average at best reviews and come what may next year I'll see you later.

Nosferatu The Vampyre

Slightly redundant title but that's about as bad as it gets here.

I'm about to say some controversial shit. I like this better than the original, now that's coming from someone who loves the original Nosferatu and has great respect along with vast appreciation for silent cinema, and indeed it's easy with more modern film techniques and different actors for something to be improved upon. But even I was kinda shocked how much I loved this movie! Obviously it takes after the silent film more than the novel Dracula so the plot differs little while still doing it's own thing, and I feel Werner Herzog did a resoundingly succesful job directing this movie! Taking a very naturalist approach with tons of location shooting, handheld camera sequences, and doing everything in camera with little to no post production trickery. The crown jewel of this movie for me is Jonathan's trek to the Carpathian mountains, the music, the so good I'm honestly pissed scenery, the atmosphere and buildup getting to Dracula's castle is nothing but 10/10 for my money's worth! And that is already on top of a stellar film, it never got dull for a second and I was quickly engrossed, Robert you got a high bar to surpass come tomorrow my friend. The cast fully sealed the deal for me on this one, I haven't seen that many Werner Herzog films but I've been around the block enough to know his rocky ass relationship with Klaus Kinski who is an effectively creepy and great Dracula, taking a more tragic lens to the character and his mannerisms and voice differentiate him from Max Schreck but also rises to his level of greatness. Isabelle Adjani who plays Lucy instead of Mina, common trend believe it or not in adaptations of the Bram Stoker novel, is hauntingly beautiful I mean if she isn't some kind of inspiration for goth girls globally what even in the hell?? She has such a look that does nothing but compliment the slightly gothic aesthetic and I greatly appreciate the fact she does not bullshit about and gets stuff done herself, she tells the Count to remove himself from her presence and that's badassery if I've ever seen it! Bruno Ganz is a solid Jonathan Harker and has a pretty interesting role near the end to say the least which I did not see coming, and the fear and hysteria he conveys is very believable. The look of the film alone is a character in and of itself, maybe it's the 70s film stock, maybe it's just how the set designers and costume department did their fine work, but something about this movie is vastly appealing to me and I feel like a complete jackass not watching this sooner in my life. This would have been an excellent introductory horror film for me between the ages of 10 to 13 that would have gotten me so into the genre. It's kinda hard to articulate why I love it as much as I do, I just know that I adore the movie and couldn't recommend it higher to be perfectly clear. Solid story no doubt but all the details of the production beyond that are phenomenal. It most definitely isn't gonna be everyone's cup of tea, but hot damn am I gonna have to watch this again in the future. 4 stars across the board, 8.5/10, and for once in what feels like an eternity I am excited for Christmas Day.

Shadow Of The Vampire

Easily one of the best titles for a vampire movie ever.

You know what's really strange? I saw this movie when I was just starting college, yes I sat down to see this in the infant months of this website and yet I remembered precisely two things about it, jack and shit. I am not typically a dude who forgets movies easily, even the bad ones I hate, so that puzzles me now tremendously. I mean the pure basic idea of what if there was no actor named Max Schreck and director F.W. Murnau got a real vampire to play Count Orlok has been a myth long before this movie came to be made, and to take an iconic piece of film history, horror history, a film that we can now say is over a century old and give it a spin is nothing short of a testament to the power of that film. Now granted the director E. Elias Merhige doesn't go for the Tim Burton way when he was making Ed Wood and be totally faithful to the sets and camera placement, but to view a semi-making of for a movie that premiered almost 80 years before the fact is cool! John Malkovich plays this utter mad scientist, almost akin to Peter Cushing's Frankenstein where he is willing to sacrifice human lives for the creation of this moving picture and hand over my heart in the last scene of the movie is more scary than Orlok! Speaking of which, Willem Dafoe as "Max Schreck" what fascinating and yet effective casting, embellishing the role of cinema's first vampire and giving him a bit of a tragic twist while still being odd and unearthly, and upon hearing because of this particular performance is what got him on the casting call for the Green Goblin makes me all the happier this movie exists. I'll freely admit the credits for this film's opening threw curveball after curveball at me, it has Cary Elwes, Eddie Izzard, and Udo Kier in it as members of the cast and crew along with the little fact that Nicolas Cage had a hand in producing this movie and we're talking post Vampire's Kiss Nic Cage here! You just can't make this shit up. For a movie just a notch past 90 minutes it has a steady pace and the writing isn't grand but has moments of brilliance particularly for Murnau's dialogue, his thesis if you will on the power of cinema and what it truly means to him is both enlightening and provocative regardless of whether the legend himself said it or not. Solid sets and costume reproductions from the 20s classic, very good acting from all involved (even if Cary's accent is iffy at times), decent music score, and you can tell this is definitely more a passion project film than a financially lucrative film for the studio which I applaud all the more and the actors have fun with the material. Sometimes you just need to make a movie for a purpose other than monetary gain, and while I fully believe this is more of a cult film that hasn't really got it's flowers yet it's not bad at all and I can indeed recommend it if you're a vampire completist or just a person who likes some fiction in your historicals. 2.5 stars, 7/10 from me! And I'm knocking another off the list with Werner Herzog's Nosferatu next time.

Heretic

Hohohohoholy shhhhit!

My day has been made going to see this movie! On viewing of the trailer it seems like this mostly natural with a lemon twist of supernatural survival horror about these two religious girls getting trapped in this guy's house and there are horrors in the basement they need to progress through, what we actually get though similar, if this is even a genre and if not I'm copyrighting it now, is a religious thriller. It's a psychological thriller with heavy religious themes, and even if you are terribly religious I fullheartedly say go see it. I am not, so I had to weigh it on it's own merits and the horror aspect, which admittedly is very good even if not much happens in the grand scheme of things. The fact it had such a strong impact on me as a non-religious dude and how they discuss belief and the lineage of monotheistic religions was not only interesting but hilarious. Maybe I'm just a sick bastard with a weird ass sense of humor, probably very true, but I laughed a good few times in this! It has incredible mood and a heavy sense of dread and realistic horror rightfully so considering the situation these poor girls are in, but Hugh Grant oh my stars he is eating this script and savoring every delicious morsel. Might ruin other Hugh Grant movies for you but for my money, absolute favorite performance of his, so off the wall and yet kinda creeps me out is a flawless recipe for character crafting in my book. Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East sell this whole movie, and especially so for Chloe cause I rather gravitated toward her character and needed her to be okay at the end of it all, and testament to the acting prowess of our leads because the vast majority of this movie is just these 3 in a room and it's amazing how well it works, they react as normally as humanly possible in such a terrifying situation. The facial acting, the body language, the voice inflection of fear and nervousness, phenomenal. And the best part is the plot keeps twisting and turning, some might say it's trying too many things but I knew there was an endgoal here and the way it threads to it was great. It gets to a certain point and I was just like ex-squees me?? You're in for a trip. In fact if I'm being really honest, this is probably gonna make the top 10 of the year. I expected it to be good but what I got was so much more interesting and engrossing than I could have anticipated. Now that's just me, I can only urge you to see it and judge it on your own standards, but the overall effect is astonishing! And isn't that what counts in the end? Good show biz my friends, the effect! 4 glowing pentagrams, 9/10! We came out on a high note and we're switching gears to television next week so get ready for the comic books!

The Omen

I guess in a really weird sort of way, without the son of Satan there would be no Superman.

Richard Donner's feature length directorial debut was a milestone in horror history, not only was it terribly succesful but gained two nominations at the Oscars completing the unholy trinity of Rosemary's Baby and The Exorcist. Now I did not know even half of this movie in comparison to Rosemary's Baby, I of course heard of it and knew some plot points but ultimately had no clue where the movie was going. It's almost framed as a mystery of this wealthy political family who adopts a son who is more than they bargained for, as both religious and unreligious figures try to assist and discern the origins of young Damien. I personally felt the mystery worked and worked well because unlike with Rosemary we don't really know how this all came about, who was in on it, and even what the end goal of such machinations could be. Not knowing sometimes is much scarier. So we essentially follow the father Robert played by Gregory Peck as he pieces all this together and has to come to terms with the fact he may have to kill his son. There's drama to that, it's not heavy handed or preachy but when you get an actor as good as Gregory, who at this period of time was pretty much done with acting all together and still delivers a strong performance as you would expect is something to be admired. Lee Remick I feel had just a bit more that could have been integrated in the story as the mother Kathryn, we get bits of her becoming wary and untrusting of Damien but I feel we could have went farther with it, but performance wise still pretty good and memorable. Same can be said for Harvey Stephens as Damien, not the focal point of the movie as you would be led to believe but for one so young we got a lot out of his performance to where you're not really sure if he's flat out evil or not which I like. Billie Whitelaw is kind of the mirror of that as Mrs. Baylock, where you only get moments but she's such a presence and has this dark look about her that you don't need more than that! It's simple, subtle, and doesn't need expounding upon. Anytime I get to see David Warner in a movie is a happy occasion and lord knows I miss the man and his talents, and I like the progression of starting as a innocuous character but becomes the second protagonist in this story and he just never fails to deliver regardless of part. Also I have to shoutout Patrick Troughton who again isn't present a lot as Father Brennan but commands respect and you know he's on the level about what he knows, of course I'm attached because of Doctor Who but it doesn't take away a fraction of his acting chops. The movie is a bit under 2 hours and it keeps your interest throughout, building on the drama of the characters than the horror of evil which I think elevates it considerably. Any other movie would have this kid blatantly act like a hellspawn and be this overblown conflict of good against evil, but instead we see the effect of the revelation on this family and you do care about them enough. The directing of Richard Donner and the writing of David Seltzer make this film what it is, with no small amount of appreciation for Jerry Goldsmith's score which can be both beautiful and horrific, all those elements craft a finely made intriguing film that I almost feel the least amount of people have seen when stacked against the other three. Everybody has watched The Exorcist, a good chunk of people have viewed Rosemary's Baby, I don't hear too many people discuss The Omen which is a shame because it does stand strong on it's own merits. Does it go for your typical style of horror or devil movies? Not at all! But it isn't trying to be above that either. It just does it in it's own way and I can respect that a great deal. I give it 3.5 stars, 8.5/10! New movie incoming Friday.

Rosemary's Baby

Yeah I'm not letting go of the season quite just yet.

I knew what I was getting into, in fact I'd be surprised to find anyone who doesn't know the gist or especially the ending of Rosemary's Baby. It doesn't help we've had over 50 years of cultural osmosis to aid in that little factoid, so do I just spoil the damn thing? I'm angry enough to do it, not because the quality of the picture is bad or any technical details or whatever, but because the events, the AUDACITY on display here would make anyone lose it. I won't lie to you for a second the opening titles made me vastly more interested to watch this than any other reason a person could throw at me, and why the hell does nobody talk about horror gimmick maestro William Castle being the producer on this film?? This is the guy who gave us House On Haunted Hill, The Tingler, and The Night Walker but nobody will put respect on his name for helping get this movie made. Unacceptable! Frankly I'd rather bring that up than the director, I don't really torch people to the ground on this show but yeah not so fucking much with this guy and the laundry list of offenses he's garnered. I wash my hands of this madness. But what really gets on my metaphorical tits with this film is just the sheer blatant abuse poor Rosemary goes through after just moving into a new apartment and wanting to start a family in New Yawk Cit-ay. It starts off innocently enough but that spiral hit for me fast after Rosemary and her husband Guy get to know the neighbors, but of course me knowing the scheme I was ready to start swinging on anyone, in particular her husband. Maybe it's telling in a good sort of way that I do not come into contact with gaslighting asshats regularly, so hearing this sack of shit almost non-stop gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss it up was...infuriating to say the least. In fact I kept waiting for something, anything for Rosemary to take some initiative on and do shit for herself. An empowering film this is not, and when she tries to it's too little too late but I was begging her to murder people in this movie before end credits. Hand over my heart they would have had to redefine the word "manslaughter" after I was done with that prick after the impregnation sequence, basically him chalking up drugging and taking advantage of a young woman as "Yeah it was weird with you being unconscious, but hey I at least trimmed my nails LOL" and even, and EVEN STILL when the other shoe drops and huzzah the Antichrist will walk the earth these sum' bitches are still lying straight to her goddamn face!! What the fuck 1960s??? I'm sure it was done that way to enforce the sheer unwinnable feeling, that dread and paranoia, no semblance of safety in sight kind of mood that pervades the film but at a certain point whether you're a mama or a papa if that's your kid coming into question, you're gonna slice a bitch. That is just it. Honestly if at least the husband or that satanist woman who looks like everybody's diabeetus filled aunt got turned into a human pincushion I wouldn't be this upset! But it's only getting louder and I'm tasting iron on my tongue, and you're saying Dude relax it's a movie to which I reply with, I shan't. And you know me, I don't come at this from some uber feminist ragebait horseshit, I'm a reasonable guy but I've experienced a lot of unreasonable things. It really took me by storm, obviously as you can tell but let's at least talk about the good things here cause it really isn't all bad. Mia babe, holy shit you got snubbed at the Oscars cause man oh man did she act it to 11! So sweet, so hopelessly näive, didn't deserve anything that happened to her at all. Which is funny because I hear despite the stalwart dedication of the translation from page to screen, Rosemary has some backbone in the book. John Cassavetes I have no clue how he played this bastard of a husband so well, but it's really a testament to his acting that you just can't stand the guy for a second, so kudos there! The elderly couple down the hall the Castevets again played super well by Ruth Gordon and Sidney Blackmer, doing such a range from charming yet slightly annoying busybodies to devout Satan worshippers, proper good acting in my estimation! All the on location shooting in New York makes it feel that more real and the apartment building itself has a lot of character and quirks, plus you get a little timecapsule edge to just being on the streets of quite possibly the most famous city in the world. I like the pacing as well, it's a bit over 2 hours and amps up just right as we progress, some would call it boring because in truth nothing all that much happens until the end that we can definitively say is real but I would argue otherwise. Because of the tone and mood presented you kinda are not sitting comfortably, you know something's up but not fully what. I was kinda surprised how trippy the movie got with it's dream sequences adding another layer of strangeness to it all, and to be fair it's directed competently. I did notice a strong lack of score or soundtrack, save for the credits I swear it's all diegetic which enhances the overbearing mood of it all. So on a technical level and even a story level it's a mighty good film but my God it irked me something fierce. Do I recommend it? Yeah if for no other reason than to say you saw it, but it's solid regardless! I give it 3 stars, 8/10! And who the hell says Halloween is over? So check in tomorrow for another devil movie.

The Mummy's Curse

Happy Halloween ghouls and ghoulettes!

More of a whimper than a bang for the end. Universal was running out of steam for horror films by the mid 40s and nothing really says it louder than the fact both Ghost and Curse came out in 1944 putting an end to The Mummy until Hammer studios got their hands on it. A titanic shift has occured here in both time and space, so apparently 25 years have passed since Ghost which if my math is mathing puts this in the late 1960s but the bigger kicker is the setting has shifted from Massachusets to friggin' Louisiana! That's kind of a wide berth to put it lightly, we got french speaking residents, multiple mentions of swamps and bayous, it's Louisiana. Admittedly the Universal Monster movies like a lot of series back then outside of film serials didn't hold continuity in a great light but even I was surprised how much was in sync picture to picture so this blindisded me a notch. But hey a change is welcome to not get stale, though it's very much business as usual. Priests of Arcam are searching for Kharis in the swamp to take him back to Egypt, the reincarnated princess is being stalked by Kharis, and the whole movie gets wrapped up in the last 5 minutes in true Universal fashion. Is it bad? No I wouldn't go that far, but I do feel if it truly ended with Ghost we would have a pretty damn good trilogy here. There really isn't much in terms of protagonist here, there's a bevy of characters who don't have much part to play so we just focus on the princess Ananka which sounds great! At long last we finally get to meet this girl who's been the goal since 1940 but since she's reincarnated she just takes the shape of a amnesiac with only hints of her past, which is a shame. Even Kharis doesn't have much to do if anything becoming the mindless killing machine we were warned about from the start, strangling any soul who's at the wrong place and the wrong time. Even the ending is pretty lackluster but it has brief memorable moments and flashes of something good that keeps it from being an utter slog and far from unwatchable. It's the weakest of the bunch but that is the curse of sequels. If I had to do a ranking I'd go:

4. The Mummy's Curse

3. The Mummy's Ghost

2. The Mummy's Hand

1. The Mummy's Tomb

 

2.5 stars for this one, 6.5/10. And it appears the eleventh hour is over now and the clock is striking twelve. This was a grand October here and elsewhere, and I hope it was for you too. Wherever you may be and whatever you do this most wonderous of days, you'll always have a little corner for Halloween right here.

The Mummy's Ghost

This may have the best ending to any of the Universal Monster movies.

Not a huge leap in quality this time from Tomb to Ghost, but a decent enough entry. Well not much time has passed since the last movie with the Mummy still in Mapleton and a new priest is introduced yet again but this time with a much different agenda, pretty much grab Ananka and get the hell out of Dodge. Yet again a 60 minute runtime to wrap up the plot, with less of a body count and less interesting protagonists in the form of 30 year old looking college students Tom and Amina who got a bit of a romance going, God bless them the writers try to give character where they can but the runtime is the real killer here and not much changes in the next movie I can tell you that. Will however say Ramsay Ames is a stunningly gorgeous woman, easily the best looking lady woman of the series especially when she gets those white streaks in her hair. And congrats to all the women out there who have that too, you're stunners! But anyway, John Carradine is our new priest and I feel that's an actor who never got his flowers despite every movie I've seen him in he does damn good work, the eyework alone in this movie is intense enough to applaud. Of course Lon returns and though he doesn't get much fanfare in his first scene has some standout moments including the above mentioned ending. Do I spoil it? It is a movie that just turned 80 years old but it's not a very well known movie either, and I think it's so good that I dare not ruin it. All I can say is that was ballsy as hell and I love it to death. It makes the whole movie worthwhile and saves it from being mediocre. It doesn't have the atmosphere and direction as the last but has it's shining moments in other areas. So I'll give it 3 stars, 7/10, you really can't lose much over an hour long movie and who the hell wants to watch stuff like Heaven's Gate or Cleopatra or Gone With The Wind when you can watch all the Kharis Mummy movies instead?

The Mummy's Tomb

Now this is more traditional fare.

Made 2 years after The Mummy's Hand we jump three decades in plot time with a new priest and Kharis venturing to Massachusets to destroy the bloodline of Steve Banning from the first movie because revenge and curses just go hand in hand, as the town of Mapleton has to contend with a murderous mummy. What surprised me twofold from the movie's start is the time period and the return of Dick Foran and Wallace Ford from the first movie, I figured Hand was pretty much the 1940s but on further investigation could have been anywhere from the start of the 1900s to 1940 cause it sure as hell doesn't look like 1970 in this movie but very much is centered in the 40s, and for a Universal monster movie to have this level of continuity of both plot and characters between films is like Marvel levels today! I think I can easily say this is my favorite of the bunch so far dropping the action comedy shtick and giving us atmosphere and horror while still basically treading the same plot as before with some appreciated variation. The cemetery, the woods, the amount of shadow play on sets, the reused music from The Wolf Man, this makes a superior sequel that pushes my buttons in all the right ways. True our leads aren't as interesting as Steve and Babe, this time being Steve's son John and his fianceè Isobel but with a runtime of one singular hour there isn't a lot of room for character depth but they act it just fine and dandy. Turhan Bey though not as slimy as George Zucco in Hand, has a real good presence and is the standout performance for me. Lon Chaney Jr. who was pretty much the main movie monster star of the decade is on the same level as Tom Tyler neither better or worse, I feel is carried aloft higher through the direction and atmosphere giving Kharis a lot more scare factor and upping the body count gives it a proto-slasher vibe. I do kinda wish the Mummy movies of this decade were longer to give more breathing room and thusly better quality, but who ever said having a fun sized length monster movie was a bad thing? I give it 3.5 stars, 7.5/10!

The Mummy's Hand

It wouldn't be October without the Universal Monsters.

Made in the second run of Universal horror spanning the 1940s, The Mummy's Hand does not follow the Imhotep mummy from 1932 but probably the more iconic Kharis mummy. Set in presumably the 40s we follow archaeologist Steve and his friend Babe who are down on their luck in Egypt but come across an artifact leading to the tomb of the Princess Ananka, however the tomb is protected by priests who use Kharis as their weapon. It's very different in tone to the 1932 Mummy with more an emphasis on action and comedy than horror and romance, yet it doesn't lose it's footing and still delivers the goods. Most people when thinking of a mummy probably envision a decrepit bandaged mummy, with dragging feet who strangles people and it all started here. The story practically blazes through with a whopping runtime of 67 minutes, and it's an entertaining enough plot for me anyway. I like our leads with Steve being more the straight man while Babe is the jokester, I've heard some call it a poor imitation of Abbott & Costello but I don't feel that was the intention and the movie did get some strong laughs out of me from time to time. I almost feel it's a rotten shame fellas with the name Babe have gone out of style, I personally would love a guy friend named Babe! I also like Marta who really is the no nonsense member of the party to keep these guys in line and while not a deep substantial romantic player works that side well enough. Tom Tyler is Kharis for this picture alone before strangling duties were given to Lon Chaney Jr., and while it does take a little while to unearth him there's some creepy shots and memorable moments. The production side of things is good solid fare from Universal at this point with nice sets and costumes, and the music score is nice too. It's not an immortal classic like the golden age horror of the 30s but for us Mummy fans it satisfies and is still a good movie on it's own merits. I give it 3 stars, 7.5/10, and we got three more to go before the end of it all.

Basket Case

Odd.

It's a special kind of an experience when you watch something like Basket Case, admittedly it's one of the most original and unique horror movies ever made bar none but I almost don't know how to feel about it. The directorial debut of Frank Henenlotter is the story of a young man named Duane who we only know two things about, he always carries a wicker basket around with him and is bumping off doctors. What's great is that if you don't really know the twist or the situation of Duane, it's a movie that keeps you guessing even after the 30 minute mark when you finally see what's in the basket. Shot on an extremely low budget that started out with just $16,000 but slowly garnered more as the still in production film showed footage to backers, it's pretty great what all they do with it! With footage in and around New York City, some bloody fantastic death scenes, along with stop motion and puppetry special effects, gets an approving thumbs up from me! It's not a super involved story that barely hits the 90 minute mark with credits yet doesn't waste any time for the audience. The acting is kinda here and there but I think that's part of the charm for low budget horror movies, with good acting from Kevin Van Hentenryck as our loner Duane, Terri Susan Smith as Sharon the love interest, and Beverly Bonner as Casey the next door neighbor of Duane who hold their own and bring a sense of professionalism to a mostly first time film production crew. The rough film stock, sets, and crude effects surprisingly work really well and you don't bash the movie for any of it, never an element present that takes you out of the film which considering how friggin' weird it is says quite a lot! It's a very humble beginning yet has spawned a cult status over the 40 years since it was released. Plus any movie especially a horror film that shows full frontal male nudity has some serious balls, pun intended. You really just don't see that barely ever so that's an impressive feat under it's belt. It's bizarre but it's decent and I'm happy I saw it, may not look like much but you can find treasure even in a dumpster. 2.5 stars, 7/10, and new movie time coming up next with a certain Symbiote.

Hellraiser

This has been a movie I've wanted to review since almost the beginning, and it's been one of those movies where I keep pushing it back year after year. But I've finally seen it.

Based off the book by Clive Barker who took it upon himself to adapt and also direct the feature film, and my God is this story bizarre. Following the aftermath of a shady individual named Frank who acquires a unique puzzle box and upon solving it summons four horrific entities that literally tear him to bits, a short time later relatives move into the house who inadvertently ressurect Frank and he has plans to become a new man again with murder and freaky ass imagery abound. This easily is the most disgusting movie I have ever seen in my life, if I had a dollar everytime I said eww or made a sound of disgust I'd be a well off man before even the halfway point. The special effects are truly special and usurps The Thing as the most grotesque visuals I've seen in a horror film for my money anyway. I'd love to read the original work and am aware of the differences Clive made himself in making the movie, in fact this was his directorial debut and I'll admit he did not do a bad job in the slightest! The acting is a bit more than your ususal horror fare, with a lot of love going to Claire Higgins who is the most complex of the characters she just did such good work with this material, and I gotta admit real quick because I've seen far far too many movies I was looking at Andrew Robinson and was like I know you but why? Guess what, dude was Scorpio in the first Dirty Harry movie! So that was a big treat for me to see him act in this and he gets his moments. Despite all the promotional material the leader of the summoned entities known as the Cenobites known famously as Pinhead is not in the film a great deal and really comes more into play near the end but the performance and look is rock solid, with Doug Bradley nailing the power and dominating presence that grabs your attention seamlessly. You can tell they had a dedicated cast and crew for this and honestly it's a miracle the production studio, Roger Corman's New World Pictures, let them do what was in the final cut. It may not have as strong a representation in pop culture or fans as other horror juggernauts but it's a good movie that deserves to be seen more in my estimation. I give it 3 stars, 7.5/10! And while the month is coming closer to an end, we have such sights to show you...

Frankenstein Unbound

Oh my dear God. Where do I even start?

Well first things first thank you James from Cinemassacre for showcasing this on a Monster Madness and bringing it to my attention, second thank you Roger for going out on the most spectacularly batshit story possible for your final directing credit, so let's just do this. I wish, oh how I wish a movie would be made like this today. You know how fucking uppity people get in their tightwad asses about staying true to a book's source material these days? Their heads would explode in Lovecraftian insanity if they watched this movie, literal brains turn to soup and their heads would explode Scanners style, no question. I'm not even sure where to begin here but we'll try. So the year is 2031 (boy I can't wait to see that) with John Hurt as a scientist named Joe who developed a machine to implode matter however the experiments cause timeslips to occur and before you can say "I may have gone too far in a few places" he finds himself in 19th century Geneva. And that's only the start of the weirdness. So he meets Victor Frankenstein, then meets the fabled monster, then meets Mary Shelley and her entourage at the Villa Diodati (no Cyberman this time sadly), then somehow gets looped in the section of the novel where Victor creates a mate for the monster, as he tries to get, say it with me now, back to the future. Now Roger co-wrote, co-produced, and directed so to say he had his hand in this would be an understatement. I'm just completely speechless guys. I will give thanks and appreciation for the fact that despite the fish out of water trope Joe honestly rolls with this shit pretty quick and being an educated man knows the history of these famous literary people and the story of Frankenstein, no need for any floundering about for 30 minutes wondering what is going on. That's for after the movie ends. And to follow the more understandable concepts, the prodiction is honestly pretty friggin' good! It's practically a period piece with lots of costumes, real life settings and architecture filmed judging from the crew credits in Italy, and the special effects range from pure cheese to pretty decent when it comes to gore. Now when I heard Raul was going to play Victor I was psyched even knowing this was a film made during the very late stages of his life unfortunately, and sadly we only get bits and pieces of him until roughly the last 30 minutes where he becomes prominent yet the acting even in that case is stellar. He's already off the deep end at this point when we meet him and seeing this morally bankrupt, deranged, anything for science attitude does still give him a lot to play with and regardless is a highlight. John Hurt love that guy to death probably plays the most laidback and dare I say disruptful scientist not just in terms of creation but just slapping the space-time continuum like it owes him money, yet again it's kind of a testament to these guys acting ability facing this frankly preposterous off the wall material with a straight face that must be admired. Joe doesn't come alone either, getting sucked away into the bleeding time vortex with a car that I can only accurately describe as if the DeLorean and KITT from Knight Rider had a daughter, and he is the most blasè son of a bitch I have ever seen showing it off to anybody, uses it to prove Mary Shelley he is indeed from the future, also shows Victor just for yucks I guess, and is the reason he gets back to....some period of time I don't know which. That whole non-intervention thing you see in every time travel story practically gets taken out back and sodomized with a double barrel shotgun, personified perfectly with Joe flat out banging Mary Shelley. Oh yeah that happens. Do you see what I mean with my opening remark? This might be the biggest fuck you movie to anybody who pays attention to source material, and I kinda love it for that. I don't think anyone has the balls to make a movie on a book and pay barely any heed to it at all in this day and age, but not in a we decided to take a few liberties kind of way and more like I did four lines of cocaine and I just wrote unicorns conquered the moon kind of way. Hell the only slight I genuinely have against the movie is the editing, it's kinda off and feels slapdash in a good few instances and maybe some less than believable ADR work. But other than that, this is fine by me! What did you expect from the asshole who reviewed Frankenhooker? This is a special kind of nuts movie but it's entertaining, I see the craftsmanship to it production wise, I'd rather see something like this than just another plain jane adaptation of the book personally speaking. It has no reservations, it wholeheartedly does it's own thing consequences be damned, and I feel that's very telling of me who I am as a person so simply take it for what it is. Watch it, just give it a go, and make judgements later. 3 stars, 7/10 from me, I need to decompress from this so I will see y'all next week.

The Man With X-Ray Eyes

Not as existential as I thought it would be but still pretty good.

This was one of Roger's more ambitious films with a budget around $300,000 dollars with a large emphasis on optical effects and experimental cinematography, following the experiment of a Dr. Xavier who develops a drug to enhance the human eye. Of course nobody would test it but himself as we watch his spiral downwards from skilled doctor, to carnival attraction, to card shark with an appropriately eerie ending. For a film at about 80 minutes long it doesn't take long for the experiment to occur and it certainly kept me guessing until the absolute end where it would go, and I feel in my bones this is a plot that could be expanded upon in a much more existential and horrific way but the touches we do get while understated are still unsettling. Imagine never having the respite of closing your eyes, imagine light being unbearably painful, imagine seeking peace when none will come to escape the far reaching gaze that pierces cloud, shadow, earth, and flesh. That's a different kind of horror, not quite body horror, not quite cosmic horror, but something people would not want to experience. The movie is carried exceptionally well on the back of Ray Milland as James Xavier, it's almost a performance based on his voice alone which is fantastic by the by, because it's hard to express the scope of such an unnatural power in the eye of the beholder but you can hear the pain and desperation he has. The experimental liquid is akin to a narcotic with him taking more and more culminating in a broken and dazed monologue at the end. I heard he wasn't keen on this movie but he performs very admirably! Diana Van der Vlis plays Diane another doctor brought in to explore the validity of the experiment and I have to give credit that no romance was written in, she's a colleague and a friend to this doomed man who tries to talk reason into him, though not a prominent part she plays it nicely. A surprise appearance by the great comedian and ball buster extraordinaire Don Rickles appears as the carnival manager Crane and my God is he great at playing this money grubbing scoundrel, again not around for very long but adds a unique element to the story and I gotta admit was great to see. The early 60s production gives a nice flair from time to time with set design, costuming, and dance moves but the beauty of the story is it really could be set during any time but the time capsule element is cool. The special effects are really damn interesting, seen entirely from the point of view of James with muddled colors, cross dissolves to see the interior working of man and machine, the choice of contact lenses for Ray, it comes together very dang well for my money. And for a person who has a substantial fear of unearthly eyes I'm happy it didn't freak me out too much but that doesn't mean eyes can't be a fair bit scary still. It's pretty impressive what Roger and the crew accomplished with such a budget during shooting and in post production, but Roger was a wild card in the deck of filmmakers that really did stuff his own way and was cost effective at doing so. It's not one of his most well known movies but it's a neat story that people can enjoy. 3 stars, 7.5/10 from me, and we got one more directorial effort from the great man himself before the week is out so stay tuned.

It Conquered The World

Damn I miss you Roger.

No way I couldn't have a little week dedicated to Roger Corman and no better place to start than a good old fashioned B-movie! Shot in a whopping 5 days this classic staple of goofy monster movie history follows a crashed alien craft with it's pilot slowly conquering...a town and not so much the Earth (hey man they had to get butts in seats somehow) with the help of a resident scientist leading to the military and the scientist's friend to stop the menace. It bears some similarities to Invasion Of The Body Snatchers which coincidentally came out the same year of 1956, and though it's far from air tight in terms of plot and it's absolutely one of those movies where you don't fully see the monster until pretty much the end I gotta admit I didn't hate it! I got involved in the story with the humans and can kinda applaud it for taking some dark cold moments from time to time. The acting is solid across the board, a lot of love was heaped upon Beverly Garland as the evil scientist's wife Claire who is far from a fainting worthless woman, in fact though it would have made the movie only about an hour she has the balls to go charging into the alien's lair with a rifle to take care of business and that is fucking awesome. Best known from shows like Mission Impossible and the host of A&E Biography along with movies such as Airplane, Peter Graves is a pretty solid yet basic lead as Paul. I'm not expecting deep writing in a monster movie but he gets the job done and has a real strong voice that I like listening to. Lee Van Cleef the legend himself plays the baddie Tom and he probably has the best written material viewing the invader as a benefactor and cure to all man's problems even fully knowing it takes over people's minds and has less than altruistic motives leading to many conversations about it. Also shoutout to Dick Miller as one of the army officers, it's always kick ass to see him in any movie whether in a major or minor role! A line that struck me hard in this movie is from Paul during one of the discussions of the wrongs the alien would put to right, "I'd have to take a long hard look at anything that was gonna change the world and me so completely." and man! That needs to circulate majorly in this day and age! Some may point to it as just a cheesy sci-fi movie but I think there's more to it, and it's not an incompetently made film either! The dialogue is good, the setting is basic but has logic, the production values of the sets are believable, and even the alien himself though slightly funny is without doubt a memorable design. Hailing from the planet Venus this red crab-like monster was laughed at even on set with particular shade being thrown from Beverly Garland, and yeah it's not that major a threat or anything but it has charm to it like any rubber suit monster has. Is it a forgotten classic? No. Is it atypical of the 50s B-movie? Yeah. But for a small budget and a run time of barely over an hour it isn't a waste. It's a sure fire recommendation if you're having a 50s monster movie night and you like them on the cheaper side. I give it 2.5 stars, 6.5/10!