Tales Of Halloween

This hurts.

In a world where we don't get many anthology movies let alone horror anthologies I was very interested to see Tales Of Halloween, and reading through the cast list gave me hope. We get Adrienne Barbeau, Lin Shaye, cameos from John Landis and Joe Dante, and of course Sam Witwer. Sign me up and throw me in, hell yeah! But. But....it was mostly forgettable. And dude, that sucks to say. But it's true, it's a collection of 10 stories over the course of 90 minutes which already is a red flag because with such limited time for these stories there's simply no meat on the bones, what you see is what you get. Which may satisfy some but for me it was a rollercoaster of quality, with only the last two stories being my favorites! Now does that mean there is no artistic, stylistic, well made concepts and executions? Of course not, but that's sort of the catch with anthology movies. You never know what you're gonna get, and it could be a tonal and quality mess. Akira Kurosawa's Dreams is an outstanding anthology, with a handful of stories told with breathtaking visuals, well written stories, and enough substance for the audience to infer and enjoy. But it all came from one source, he directed all the segments and wrote them thus creating a better film. With 10 stories in Tales Of Halloween they had 11 directors and 12 writers. That is a f***ing problem. You get many wildly different stories in concept and execution, some looking like horror movie fluff and some bordering on student film arthouse, all of which are happening in the same town again very much like Trick r' Treat. And there ain't much entertainment value from it, the actors do fine and none are really bad at all, but the stories have no time to grow and breathe to create atmosphere and give us likable characters, it's quantity over quality. I called the twists for about 90% of these stories because I've watched way too much Twilight Zone and a bit of Tales From The Crypt, but even I know if you or someone you know who hasn't watched those shows are smart enough to figure this shit out. Sam Witwer alone saved this movie from being a forgettable and unremarkable film, I just appreciate that man so much already, the handsome devil, but he has such great screen presence and comedic timing that he made me excited to watch this movie. But he's the second to last story. And the last story was my other favorite, again down to the main character this badass cop who gets all these crazy stories down at the precinct and she goes out to try to deal with it. Beautiful! Perfect! That's all I need! Go forth and wreck shit babe. But! Again! We had 15 minutes of film left and surprise asshole, it ends on a cliffhanger and there is literally 6 minutes of credits so have fun with that shithead! And things were starting to look up for me. I just...God I had hope, I had hope it would be good but sometimes the IMDB stars don't lie. 2.5 stars, 6/10, what a f***ing bummer to go out on the day before Halloween. But I got nothing else, no extra reviews, no tricks up my sleeve, no further horror reviews in November. You get nothing! You lose! I hate it. See you in November, happiest of Halloweens to all and to all a good night.

Nosferatu

Not my first silent film but certainly one of the most effective.

Nosferatu deserves a lot of credit and a lot of respect in the horror genre, not only did it truly bring to life vampires in cinema but is such an eerie film that I can pinpoint to many different reasons. The plot is a loose adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula mainly changing the names of characters, and it's honestly a miracle this film even exists because Bram Stoker's widow sued the filmmakers and almost every print was destroyed. Sure London After Midnight is the holy grail of lost horror films, but I don't think people appreciate fully that we have this movie at all. There's many versions of this movie, it fell into the public domain which makes all of 3 horror films I know of that you can watch straight on YouTube, and the quality I got on there was good with the proper color tinting but the runtime didn't reach 90 minutes, I can fullheartedly say you should buy the Kino version because it looks outstanding and is at a pretty good price for a DVD. F.W. Murnau was a monumental director and did such a good job with this, the shots can be pretty and can also be skin crawling, and while I watched it with an organ accompaniment I feel the only true way is to watch it with zero audio. But not only that, the performance from Max Schreck is for my money the scariest vampire in cinema. His physicality can never be forgot and the strange unearthly way he moves in tandem with the rest of the cast is excellent. Silent cinema of the 1920s is never represented better than in the horror genre, I mean seriously how many silent black and white films can you name that aren't outright horror movies? I can name a few but that's because I enjoy that type of movie, especially with Lon Chaney as the star but an average person points to Nosferatu, The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari, and The Phantom Of The Opera. This movie is nearly a century old and having that context makes it such a strange curiosity further engrossing the uncanny and creepy visuals. Bottom line, it's a classic for a reason. 4 stars, 7.5/10! But there's only one way to ever watch it, in the middle of the night ,when you are alone, edging towards sleep, with nothing but the silence and glow of your TV as company. And as you make your way to your bedroom in almost pitch black, you don't dare look behind you and hope that the sun rises a little quicker than usual.

The Exorcist III

Why am I doing 3 before 2? Two reasons, 1. The second movie is bad, and B. While both have connections to the first this felt like a proper sequel.

After the total maelstrom of shite the second Exorcist movie became, the original author William Peter Blatty took it upon himself to write and direct the third. That's how much he hated it. And to be fair I haven't read The Exorcist and I think he does competent work here but my heavenly stars does this movie get odd. Honestly, if this wasn't an Exorcist movie or have any ties to the supernatural at all this would be a great film. The plot centers on a police officer who is working on murder cases that are identical to a previous serial killer known as Gemini, despite the killer being dead for 15 years. He discovers that Damien Karris from the first movie was possesed by the spirit of the Gemini Killer after his climactic fall down the stairs at the end of the first movie and has only recently started to murder. It's a bit bonkers to say the least, but if you can look past the outlandish plot elements which are really few and far between this is a pretty decent movie. But do you see why I say this would make a superior crime film than horror film? It really plays out as that for the majority of the film with instances of spooky supernatural stuff peppered throughout. In the original script there wasn't even an exorcism scene and I hear tale that there is a director's cut out there that fits more to that script. I still quite liked this movie but I feel it all comes down to the shoulder of the cast. George C. Scott is our main character, do I even need to go on? He's great as always and his reputation only improves with every film I see him in. With Gemini, both Jason Miller returns but we also get Brad Dourif as the embodiment of the killer and you can imagine the faces of fear I had watching him. F*** me sideways, it has been a good damn while since any performance has hit me like that! If there ever was a reason to watch this movie it is because of Brad Dourif, I seriously could go on a tirade just about him because I just adore that man to the moon and beyond. It really and truly is scary good. I love how the film is shot, it does not rush things and builds that tension and suspense well through great camera work and editing. I can see if people call it slow but I never personally thought the movie dragged even a smidge. The exorcism scene is just as wild with so much visual flair to it compared to the practically subtle first one, it's kind of a trip but nevertheless fascinating and interesting. It's a bizarre combination of genre and substance but I'll take it over The Heretic any day of any year, I won't blame anybody if they just want to stick to the original and not venture further beyond into the myriad of sequels, but if you're feeling adventurous and want to see something odd yet quite good give this a shot. I give it 3 stars, 7.5/10! Only two more movies to go before the bittersweet end, and needless to say in October it's a wonderful life.

Day Of The Dead

I might have to give this a 9/10.

I liked it better than Dawn Of The Dead which I consider a damn good movie. I honestly cannot believe how good it was. Which is funny because from all accounts I've heard, this movie didn't do super well when it was released in 1985 critically, but many people nowadays consider it to be the best. I have to very much agree with them! Once again I personally believe this to be a sequel to Dawn, the humans are now vastly outnumbered by the zombies and a small group have taken shelter in a mining facility, as the scientific and military personnel clash heavily making the human conflict in Night look like a minor squabble. The tension is here and bigger than before as each party has it's own plan of what to do with the situation at hand. So the story is outstanding and the cast is what really pushes it above and beyond. Lori Cardille is an awesome lead and a true sign of a stronger female character throughout the course of the series, she just ain't here to take anyone's shit and is the voice of reason. On the opposite side we have Joe Pilato as Captain Rhodes, probably one of the most berating asshole characters in cinematic history, he's so jerkish you can't help but love to hate him. My favorite character is the mad scientist Logan played by Richard Liberty who everyone calls Frankenstein, I buy every word he's saying and he has such a high level of energy and curiosity as he conducts numerous experiments to better understand the zombies and try to tame them. And I'll be damned if I don't say Howard Sherman is the best actor I've ever seen, if that ain't cinematic excellence then nothing is. With so much makeup and uttering one bit of dialogue I'll go out on a limb here and say he's the best zombie actor ever. Speaking of which the effects are absurdly amazing in this picture, ingenious in practicality and gory to the max and yes I would say it is award deserving. The location is instantly memorable, shot in a real life mine which I believe you can visit to this day making a very dark, dingy, and claustrophobic environment which fits perfectly with the tone. The soundtrack is simply the best, and I had a lot of love for Dawn's soundtrack but this is a whole other level. It's the only zombie movie I've seen that touches on the psychological effects in such a situation, normally it's a commentary on society or government but here it shows what a hopeless situation it is and how much it adversely effects our characters. It's nothing short of classic, and a truly improved film since Dawn Of The Dead. If I could give it 5 stars I would, and a full 9/10 from me! I knew one day I had to watch these movies and it was well worth the time, with full recommendations to all of them. If you're like me and don't have a lot of love for zombies unlike so many others, check these out, you'll appreciate it a bit. Only one week left, what to do now when we're so close to the end once more? Well if there is one thing I've learned, anything can happen on Halloween so the sky is the limit.

Dawn Of The Dead

I find it pretty surprising this movie came out a full decade after Night Of The Living Dead.

That movie probably was the most succesful independent picture ever at that moment in time, but George really got screwed over with his profits from the movie so maybe he took the time to better his knowledge of the film industry and better himself as a director before returning to make a sequel. I think that's the biggest question of all these Dead movies, is each subsequent movie following the events of the last or is it just a standalone film? And to me personally, I think this is a follow up to Night with the zombie epidemic spreading, nobody knows what in the hell is going on, groups of hunters and soldiers are patrolling the woods, I totally can see this as a continuation. We meet up with some new characters, a TV newsperson, a helicopter pilot, and two SWAT officers who meet up and decide the best place to hide out is a shopping mall. I find it incredibly interesting how much malls have changed in the ensuing 40 odd years, it really was the place to get everything and not just clothes, entertainment, and beauty products. They had food shops, hardware stores, arcades, banks, it truly was the one stop place if you had the scratch, so it's rather an ingenious place to hole up. The pacing of the film I feel was perfect, I'm not sure which cut of the movie I got, it clocked in past 2 hours and had a lot of the soundtrack by Goblin which is a great soundtrack by the way, so was it the theatrical cut or like a director's cut? Well I looked into it. The history of this movie is completely f***ed, there's so many different versions since it premeired depending on where you lived due to censorship, but yes the version I watched was the theatrical cut which apparently Romero preferred the most so I'm happy about that. But anyway, the film takes it's time showing these people survive in the mall, it takes about half an hour for them to get there which helps set up how the public is dealing with the situation and the pandemonium experienced by news crews, and when there's less than 30 minutes before the end is where the climax starts. It's pretty great, with a motorcycle army led by Tom Savini crashing their sanctuary and going wild, there's so much that happens it's difficult to recount everything that occured but instantly memorable at the same time. Good ol' Ken Foree is back and center stage and I flat out stated early in the movie, if he lives I'm gonna love it, and this film got me jumpy to see if he made it. In fact I really liked all our main characters, each having good personality and inner workings with the other characters that made them really click. Christ, they never even argue and start going at each other's throats, isn't that nice? Cooperation, it's grrrreat! I heard Tom Savini wasn't very pleased with how the zombies looked cause they had a slight blue tint to their skin tone, but honestly I never had a problem with it because the blood spurts and gore was divinely disgusting with once again the intestines being the real gross out moment for me, I mean I kinda felt queasy watching that, but I like the way they look once again being very minimal and I find the blue tint logical, if you lose oxygen you start turning blue so it makes sense why they look sort of ashy grey mixed with a smidge of pthalo blue. But before I start telling you what we wash our brushes with, let's continue. I really really liked it, maybe even more than the first. I still loved the cinematography, I really loved the soundtrack, acting was great, effects were great, the story was interesting and had it's suspenseful moments, I can't wait to see Day Of The Day which many now consider to be the best of them all so sign me up. 4 stars, 8.5/10! Hell you think this is how store employees feel on black friday? I'd take a machete to their brains too guys...

Night Of The Living Dead

Wow. I forgot how good it was!

I have only seen this movie twice now, once a long time ago in my early teens long before I settled on my dream job. And looking at it again really made my day! Should I recount the plot when it's one of the most famous horror movies ever? Yeah sure, why not. There's no real reason as to why the dead are walking the earth as we meet up with several people trying to find shelter and survive, as tensions rise and personalities clash. And I must say for an independent, very low budget movie, with a minimal crew this looks goooood! Oh my God it looks so good, the lighting, camera placement, editing, I've heard a lot of people talk about this movie but they never dug into how it actually looks so I had to profess my love for it. The cast is very good too, it's no real surprise Duane Jones is the shining star of the lot, I just point to about a 3 minute monologue of how he got to where he is at the house and damn I believe every word of it. He deserved that leading man role and nailed it! I have zero issue with Judith O'Dea as Barbara, honestly her acting as a very shellshocked person holds up well but lord help me, this character got grating. Either stonewalling or hysterical, and hardly ever useful. Say what you will about Mr. Cooper but he at least did stuff, despite being a raging jackass but I attest that to good acting from Karl Hardman. The zombies look good to, and since it's black and white the makeup is minimal and works great. It's such a humble genesis to a friggin' juggernaut of a monster nowadays, really comed up with on the spot that the dead don't stay dead and they love eating people. But there's obviously more than actors wandering a field and eating ham glazed with chocolate sauce, there is that human analysis element of why they act this way, what would I do, it's a microcosm of humanity now, thesis thesis thesis, it's good fun to talk about. Smart almost introspective writing in a horror film, that's pretty great. Also pretty sure this was the final push to get a film rating system out, so teen and pre-teen audiences don't have to see intestines ripped apart, so it left a mark just as much then as it does now. And yeah, about that ending....I was livid at the end my first time seeing it, I swear to God I couldn't believe it! It's bold yes and firmly set Romero's undeniable stamp that this is his own body of work, but shiet I was floored. 4 stars, 8/10, and this wasn't the end for dear George and his creations so check in next time for Dawn Of The Dead.

3 From Hell

Fair is fair, Devil's Rejects wins the prize.

Did I hate 3 From Hell? Absolutely not. I think Rob Zombie wanted to kinda flip the script and do something different which I very much liked. If there was only one problem with the film I would say it's the fact that it takes place after Devil's Rejects and I felt that ending was pretty final. So somehow our favorite gang of killers survived the police blockade and have spent a decade in prison before escaping and trying to figure out what to do next, with no real end goal they take to the roads before ending up in Mexico for a unusual yet still good climax. I find it quite funny that Baby went from my least favorite to most favorite through these movies, it could almost be argued the film has a focus on her after being imprisoned for 10 years and she starts to question what's really the point of it all. I'm here for it, I love it, that's a good dynamic to have! Otis is still Otis but with a lot more humor this time, practically playing parent to Baby so I just had a ball with Bill Moseley's performance. I knew it was unlikely I would see Sid on the road again with the group, and to know he passed away not even a week after the film hit theaters is a damn shame but I'm happy to see just a little bit of him in this. So we have newcomer to the Firefly family Winslow enter the group and I will admit I did very much enjoy Richard Brake's performance throughout, so I wasn't upset about the mix up of cast. Once again, great tone setup and cinematography with most of it having that distinctive 70s film grain and I'm not sure whether my eyes got used to it or what but it was looking good near the end. One thing I of course noticed through all of these movies is the classic horror movies playing on the television sets, mostly Universal Monsters but if you know your stuff you'll pick out the lesser known films too, so no surprise I'm heavily appreciative of those inclusions. But yeah, the style is this odd mesh of documentary style footage like Cannibal Holocaust, the Rob Zombie zest we always get, there's even some Robert Rodriguez influence like Grindhouse and El Mariachi thrown in but it works very well for me. I haven't delved into any of Rob Zombie's work though I've heard a few tracks of his, so this was a very pleasant surprise and a mighty good week of movies to watch. He really is the kind of director who just wants to shoot what he wants, studio system be damned, amd I say good for him. He made some good movies more horror fans should check out, and for anyone who has a strong stomach and twisted sense of humor. I really had no idea what to expect in the slightest but consider me interested to talk about more of his movies in the future. I give this 3 stars, 7.5/10, might not be the best of them all but I'll take it over horror remakes anyday.

Next week, a very long awaited genre of monster is finally walking in.