From Halloween

Halloween II: Supernatural Michael Myers

Halloween II. 2009. Directed & Written by Rob Zombie.
Starring Scout Taylor-Compton, Brad Dourif, Malcolm McDowell, Tyler Mane, Dayton Callie, Richard Brake, Octavia Spencer, Danielle Harris, Margot Kidder, Sheri Moon Zombie, Chase Wright Vanek, & Caroline Williams. Dimension Films/Spectacle Entertainment Group/Trancas International Films.
Rated R. 105 minutes.
Horror

‚ėÖ‚ėÖ‚ėÖ1/2
POSTER¬†Rob Zombie is a take-him-or-leave-him-type director. You either love him, or can’t stand him. Much the same as with his music career. But for me, and I’m sure others, Zombie is one director whose entire film career feels like the last bastion of a time before too much CGI, too many remakes (yes; even though he’s done two¬†Halloween flicks). He works like how many directors did during the late 1960s and the 1970s, focusing on performance, practical effects, instead of loading down his horror films with computer generated blood and watering it all down for public consumption. Even if you don’t like his movies, you have to admire the fact he lays it all out there. Particularly,¬†The Devil’s Rejects and The Lords of Salem are my favourites, and are a great representation of how he goes for it, no matter the subject, themes, or style of the movie. He always leaves everything on the table and gives us to us in his typically Zombie-like fashion.
So then there’s¬†Halloween II. Many people I know didn’t even enjoy the first one, the remake to Carpenter’s classic slasher from 1978. Me, I find this sequel to the remake endearing in its own ways. There are some pieces I don’t enjoy. But overall, there’s enough in this Zombie sequel to enjoy apart from the first¬†Halloween II. It doesn’t come as a faithful remake. It’s a furthering of aspects in¬†the Zombie version of Michael Myers. We dive deeper into the mind of the notorious slasher, and the almost supernatural element of Michael, one which came out later in the original series, is on display full force.
Pic1
After the events of¬†Halloween, Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) is left wounded. Both physically, and especially mentally. She’s living with Sheriff Lee Brackett (Brad Dourif) and his daughter Annie (Danielle Harris). They do their best to try and understand her, to try and help. But Laurie is damaged beyond belief.
Meanwhile, Dr. Samuel Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) is shopping his book around and making lots of money, getting famous. Although, people are wary of him, as they believe he’s profiting off the death of many.
And then there’s Michael Myers (Tyler Mane). He’s not dead, and the¬†men transporting his dead body discover that. Michael, driven by visions of his dead mother Deborah (Sheri Moon Zombie), keeps looking for Laurie.
And he will find her. No matter who gets in the way.
Pic2
One thing I do truly love about this sequel to the remake is that, like the original series as it went on, it really pushes the boundaries on Michael’s brutality. Later on in the original series, either in the fourth or fifth installment, Myers pushes his thumb through a person’s head. Even in John Carpenter’s original classic, his power is displayed pretty clearly with him picking up a teenager and pinning him to the wall with his knife. But here in the new¬†Halloween II, Zombie almost goes further. In the opening 20 minute sequence there is some savagery. A nasty decapitation. Lots of raw, brutal force from Myers, as he starts to murder his way back into Haddonfield, one corpse at a time.
Many people, it seems, had a problem with the backstory to Michael with Zombie’s remake to start. I understand that. Some fans of the franchise just like Michael as this faceless entity. My argument is that, had Zombie not changed anything and done the same thing, people would likely have ragged on him for copying Carpenter. Instead, Zombie brings a fresh face, literally, to Myers. He gives him humanity, but takes it away. He makes Michael human to make him a monster, an even more vicious killer than the original (even though I love Carpenter’s film most). We even get him wandering around sans-mask, which some of course cried sacrilege over. I dig it because that sets him apart as Zombie’s own character, as opposed to a simply copy of Carpenter.
There is a further brutal nature to Michael when he’s this person that became a unrelenting killer instead of just The Shape. So an extension of this version is that psychology plays a big part in what Michael becomes, who he is as the unstoppable serial killer. The whole white horse deal I found a bit of fun. And I like how Laurie, in her trauma, starts having the same vision of her mother. Very eerie, and supernatural without quite being supernatural. It’s like a fever dream.
Now, I don’t dig that the same kid didn’t play young Michael. It was really off-putting. Not only because they’re definitely different looking (and yes I understand the real actor likely changed a good deal in between the films), but the original actor Daeg Faerch has a very perfect charisma and style for the character. So that’s one of the aspects of this movie that truly disappointed me. The actor here didn’t fit the role and his intensity is starkly different, so the flow of this film with the remake is a bit shaky.
Pic3-1Pic3
I’m back and forth on Laurie as a character in this movie. Her trauma is very real, I don’t doubt she would be a woman torn apart after the events she’d experienced. However, the writing on Zombie’s part makes her so whiny and just too unlikeable. The way she treats her best friend, Annie, who went through lots of trauma herself, is difficult to reconcile. Maybe that was the intention. But still, it actually annoys¬†me, Scout Taylor-Compton makes me hate her and I didn’t during the first one. I can appreciate characters who are despicable, et cetera, this only serves as a way to make me feel like fast forwarding. And I’m already in the minority of people who actually dig this flick.
In the acting department, what saves Halloween II is the fact Brad Dourif, Daniel Harris, and Malcolm McDowell give us pretty good performances in their respective roles.
Dourif is always a treat, especially when given the proper material. His Sheriff Brackett is even better than Charles Cyphers in the first two original¬†Halloween films. I love the way Zombie writes characters, and it shines with Brackett. Performed by Dourif it is a dream. The whole Lee Marvin bit is some of my favourite banter from any recent horror. So funny, even funnier that the girls have no idea about Lee Marvin, nor do they get the barn part of the joke. Just a great sequence. Dourif and Harris are great as a father-daughter combo. Harris herself is a¬†Halloween veteran. Here, as a grown woman, she does a nice job in the tragic role she plays. Her energy is what’s enjoyable, even in films that aren’t so great. But the Annie Brackett she plays is equally as fun as Nancy Kyes (billed as Nancy Loomis). Harris doesn’t get a huge part before the fate she runs into, but what we get is solid.
Finally, it’s McDowell as Dr. Loomis that I enjoy most. I will¬†always love Donald Pleasence and his portrayal above anything in any of the films, truly. He was amazing. What I enjoy here is how Zombie writes Loomis as a fame-whore, a guy who just wants another shot at being well-known, at money and glamour. As opposed to the original, Loomis here is an opportunist, who only after it’s too late realizes the error in his ways. So with McDowell acting his ass off and bringing this new vision of the doctor to life, it’s a ton of fun. Some of the dialogue with his assistant is downright hilarious. But it’s the tragedy of this character, the blind ignorance, which really sells it. McDowell was made for this role, too. He has all the right range to play a man who’s got this saccharine sweetness about him in public and, when pushed, a bitter rage that comes out.
Pic4Pic5
With warts and all, I give Zombie’s second¬†Halloween a 3&1/2-star rating. There is a great dose of horror and terror within. Not all of Zombie’s writing is on par here with the first, or some of his other work. Nevertheless, he gives us a version of the Michael Myers tale that doesn’t try and straight-up adapt the original sequel (apart from a nice dreamy sequence in the beginning). The brutality of Myers is always evident, as is the trauma that his serial killing rampaging has caused. Although the script could’ve been better, I still thought Zombie did some interesting things, as well as brought the savagery required to make this worthy of a watch.

Advertisements

Halloween: Resurrection – Rosenthal Does Nothing for the Series

Halloween: Resurrection. 2002. Directed by Rick Rosenthal. Screenplay by Larry Brand & Sean Hood.
Starring Jamie Lee Curtis, Brad Loree, Busta Rhymes, Bianca Kajlich, Sean Patrick Thomas, Daisy McCrackin, Katee Sackhoff, Luke Kirby, Thomas Ian Nicholas, Ryan Merriman, and Tyra Banks. Dimension Films/Nightfall Productions/Trancas International Films. Rated 18A. 89 minutes.
Horror/Thriller

‚ėÖ‚ėÖ
halloween_resurrection_poster
So at this point, the¬†Halloween franchise has all but ran its course. Honestly, I do enjoy the previous film a bit. More than that I’m a fan of the entire series. Even the less than great entries can still be a lot of fun, as opposed to some of the later¬†Friday the 13th entries which I find virtually unwatchable at times. But most of¬†Halloween: Resurrection is just bad. Not everything is horrible, not at all. However, the lion’s share here goes to bad horror, forced comedy and not enough of the classic horror which makes Michael Myers so scary.
The effects in many scenes are well done, they’re also pretty gruesome and frightening. The acting is almost laughable in terms of the main cast – they’re almost upstaged by the rambling mental patient who rattles off serial killer trivia, from John Wayne Gacy to Ted Bundy, and so on. And too many times you’ll find yourself wondering how low the series will sink, starting with the opening sequence involving Laurie Strode and Michael in their final confrontation. Director Rick Rosenthal did an amazing job with the first sequel,¬†Halloween II, but 21 years later he came back with a fistful of shit and did no justice to any of the other good movies throughout the franchise.
halloween-resurrection-1
Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) decapitated Michael Myers at the end of the last film. Turns out, Michael actually managed to switch his clothes with a paramedic. He made his way out and hid for three years, while Laurie rotted in a mental asylum. Although, she spent that time preparing for a showdown that had to be coming eventually. When it does finally, Michael ends up once and for all killing his long lost sister: what he always set out to do.
But evil never rests. Michael Myers goes back to the only place he ever knew outside of the walls of a psychiatric ward: home, Haddonfield. Only an internet show is being broadcast from the old Myers place. Freddie Harris (Busta Rhymes) and Nora Winston (Tyra Banks) at DangerTainment have set the whole thing up, selecting six young people to spend a night in the “birthplace of evil in its purest form“. Things don’t go so well, once it’s clear Michael has more definitely come home.
6a017d4117b2c6970c019affc25a93970d
Usually, if anything, I’m able to find a few good kills in any of these films. This one is no exception. Even while almost everything else happening is total junk, there are some interesting and very brutish kills. For instance, what slasher horror is complete without a nice impaling? Well, some of them are, I suppose. But the bad slashers, such as this one, really need those sorts of kills. If not, everything gets stale. Here, we have a character impaled by Myers, which ups the gory ante. Earlier, someone gets stabbed viciously in the head. Later on, the strength of Myers is once more evident in all its savage glory, as Michael ends up crushing a guy’s head into bloody chunks. An homage to the original¬†Halloween sees a victim pinned to a door, hung by kitchen knives, almost similar to one of the deaths in John Carpenter’s masterpiece. But best of all, I do dig how people watch on while the others die, live streaming into the house. And to think – this was 13 years ago now. Today, the bloodthirsty internet audience might actually love this sort of thing. So, despite all the shortcomings of this mostly unnecessary sequel in the franchise, I can find a few little things to enjoy here and there. But not too much.
Halloween-Resurrection-2
One thing¬†several of the¬†Halloween films have in common, and make them more enjoyable than their lesser counterparts, is there have been good, solid performances. I can’t say that, at all, about¬†Halloween: Resurrection. While I have a love for Busta Rhymes and his music career, the sentiment does not extend to his acting abilities. All the same, he’s probably the most fun of all the actors because at least Busta seems into it. Otherwise, it’s a cast filled with pretty-to-look-at people who can’t exactly act up to the level they need to in order to make this sinking ship float. With¬†American Pie alumni Thomas Ian Nicholas, the geek goddess Katee Sackhoff, a terribly miscast Tyra Banks and Ryan Merriman whose most well-known credit to date is either¬†The Ring Two or Pretty Little Liars, the entire cast couldn’t save this abomination. Perhaps if better actors wanted to be in this sequel, it might be different. As it stands, the acting doesn’t do anything to push the film to higher heights. I don’t mean to disparage these actors, I’m sure they’ve all done decently in other work, but this movie falls apart quicker than it should due to the lack of much talent, or at least effort, in the respective performances.
Halloween Resurrection 4Halloween Resurrection Michael Myers
I can give this sequel a 2 star rating without feeling too bad about it. Definitely does not deserve any more. With a good deal of brutality and decent make-up effects, some of the slasher elements of¬†Halloween: Resurrection are up to speed with certain other entries in the franchise. Though, this is where the goodness ends. Including too much laughable acting, a terrible and unjust opening sequence involving Laurie Strode, and overall a story that does nothing for the franchise other than try to milk more money out of hardcore fans (who’ll see anything with the name¬†Halloween on it if involving Michael Myers), this really is an abysmal sequel. Not saying there aren’t others, but this is absolutely one of the worst in the entire series. You don’t need to see it for any other reason than to be a completist. I even own it on a collection including the last three movies of the franchise, on Blu ray no less. But only because I’m a collector, and because I love Myers; regardless of how the Hollywood machine decides to pimp him out.

Halloween III: Season of the Witch – Better Than Remembered

Halloween III: Season of the Witch. 1982. Directed & Written by Tommy Lee Wallace.
Starring Tom Atkins, Stacey Nelkin, Dan O’Herlihy, Michael Currie, Ralph Strait, Jadeen Barbor, Brad Schacter, Garn Stephens, Nancy Kyes, Jonathan Terry, Al Berry, Wendy Wessberg, Essex Smith, Maidie Norman, John MacBride, and Loyd Catlett.
Dino De Laurentiis Company/Universal Pictures.
Rated R. 98 minutes.
Horror/Sci-Fi

‚ėÖ‚ėÖ‚ėÖ1/2
halloween-iii-season-of-the-witch-dvd-cover-13 The¬†Halloween franchise is one of my favourites in horror. Not a big fan of the last couple. But seriously, from John Carpenter’s original masterpiece¬†Halloween right up to¬†Halloween V, I’m right in there with the biggest of fans. Each of them aren’t equally as amazing. They’ve each got their merits, though. I’ll say this: the first two are slasher horror masterpieces.
In the middle of all the regular Michael Myers pictures, there stands¬†Halloween III: Season of the Witch. What ought to have been marketed as a spin-off from the franchise rather than actually being the permanent third installment has been banished to the world of cult classic verging on generally maligned. There are several camps of people who talk about this¬†Halloween film – some say it’s terrible and has no merit, others (like me) think it’s real good and should’ve done better had the producers marketed it correctly, and then crazier people than I who say it’s the best of the series (sorry that honour belongs to the very first; no matter how much I enjoy some of the others).
What I know for sure is this is a good horror movie. It doesn’t deserve to be torn up, it also doesn’t need to be over praised. If you go into it knowing this is NOT a Michael Myers slasher, then there’s a chance you’ll come at it correctly and find the horror and quasi-science fiction elements enjoyable. Watch a trailer, any trailer for this film and you can understand it’s different from the others. But it isn’t bad different, it’s simply not a typical¬†Halloween entry. Much as I love Michael, this movie has a creep factor wholly of its own and I firmly believe – without any hype – the only reason this movie isn’t more widely loved is solely due to how its been marketed. Take the¬†Halloween title off this, keep¬†Season of the Witch and maybe make a few more tenuous ties to Myers (like showing the original film on a television), you’ve got yourself a solid 1980s horror classic.
h3iiiSmall shop owner Harry Grimbridge ((Al Berry) is attacked by unknown men in the night. He flees and eventually ends up in the hospital. There, he’s later killed by one of these same men. Although, Dr. Daniel Challis (Tom Atkins) is witness to the man’s last words, and shows up just after his murder. Following the killer outside, he sees the man pour gas all over himself and strike a match, blowing his car sky high. This sets him off on a quest to figure out what happened – alongside him is Harry’s daughter, Ellie (Stacey Nelkin).
What they end up uncovering is a vast and horrific plot by businessman Conal Cochran (Dan O’Herlihy); one involving Halloween, threatening every boy and girl looking to put on a mask so they can head out for candy.

The whole opening 20-minute sequence is extremely creepy and a whole lot of fun: from when Harry Grimbridge is attacked by the suit & glove wearing assailants to the moment Dr. Challis watches one of them light himself on fire and the car explodes. Can’t think of a better way this movie could’ve started out. The writing here from director-writer Tommy Lee Wallace is solid and makes the film’s energy pump hard immediately.
HalloweenIII-MasksBartender: “What’s the matter – don’t you have any Halloween spirit?
Dr. Challis: “No

An obvious viewing of this film holds themes involving¬†big versus small business, consumerism, corporations feeding off the figurative soul of children via Halloween, and more. I’m not the first to try and draw any of that out, nor will I be the last.
I love the character of Harry Grimbridge to start. Right off the bat you’ve got this small business owner, running a hold-out shop against the big supermalls and chain stores, still getting much of his business from kids just out of school – and he’s being hunted down by the robot-like, suit & glove wearing henchmen, the identical looking murderers; they are legion. A little later there’s a homeless man Dr. Challis comes across. He gets his head pulled off by two of them because he’s out rallying against the man. The homeless man happens to tell Challis about how Cochran (Dan O’Herlihy) won’t employ the good ole local boys, but rather imports his workers from elsewhere. Can this get any clearer really? It’s not quite on the nose, definitely in the vicinity. No matter, I think it works great because there’s metaphor yet it’s blatant and still that’s perfect. Makes for a bit of unsettling horror.
cochranThe effects aren’t all spot on, though, they are certainly effective. I love when one of the clone-like henchmen pulls Grimbridge’s skull apart by the eye sockets and nose. Incredibly vicious, both during and afterwards! When a woman dies at the motel, I thought the initial parts of the makeup effects looked great, but the the longer Wallace lingers on her the worse it looks. Still, there are other worthwhile effects. Particularly once the science fiction type elements find their way into the screenplay, the practical makeup effects are ghastly at times; in the appropriate sense. The orange juice-looking liquid used at one point is sickly and makes for an uneasy feeling in the guts. Great, great stuff.
A subtle scene involves a drill – we never get to see the brutish stuff, we’re left by Wallace to imagine it instead. Which I often find even more tough. Nice choice by him on this one. Could’ve easily been a gory kill and here it’s something that will probably make you cringe in different way.
Favourite effects scene has to be when the first young boy has his head destroyed by the pumpkin mask. The way the mask looks to start, breaking down and decaying like it’s burning up inside and out, then all the insects, the snake slithering through the boy’s dead mouth… it’s raw and disturbing. Some intense shots here, especially considering the whole family of three dies in the made-up living room set. It’s a shocker of a scene, super effective.
10.23-halloween3Halloween-3-04Taken on its own, as a sort of standalone spin-off,¬†Halloween III: Season of the Witch is a 3.5 out of 5 star horror movie. There are plenty of chilling moments, different in subject matter yet similar in tone to the rest of the franchise. As well as the fact you’ll see several wild kills, a few of those even further contain fun practical effects. It isn’t as great as¬†Halloween or¬†Halloween II, but it is damn good stuff. A little different spin on the franchise, and why not? The whole series wears out past the fifth entry, even earlier for some other viewers, so what’s the harm in one movie taking another path? I see no reason why this should be a widely panned film. It’s not perfect, but there is great horror and a dose of science fiction even. Check this one out if you’ve avoided it until now. You may find yourself pleasantly surprised; or horrified, possibly.

More Disturbing Halloween Horror: Blood, Guts, Skulls and Stuff

With a list for the disturbed, one for zombies/living dead/infected, a 31-day map of horror and even a list for Halloween-ers who aren’t horror fans, I’ve come to one with a special disturbing dedication: blood and gore and uncomfortable pains!
While the other disturbing list is a bunch of general unsettling movies, this one is based mainly around effects and the visual nastiness. Now, these aren’t meant to be the BLOODIEST, or the wildest gore imaginable, nothing like that. The movies on this list are some of the ones with the effects I enjoy most, the nastiest depictions of violence, and so on, which I’ve found throughout the 4,100 films I’ve seen in the past 30 years.
Hopefully you hardcore horror fans will enjoy some of these and you’ve probably seen a few, if not all. Either way, let me know what you think and if there are any others you enjoy that ought to be shared.


Anthropophagus (1980)/ Absurd (1981)
ANTHROPOPHAGUS-font-b-Movie-b-font-Poster-1980-Horror-font-b-Gore-b-font-Print-Silk
A perfect double feature if you want a big helping of senseless violence, relentless terror and creepy atmosphere. These two landed on the Video Nasty list during 1983; they were also prosecuted successfully.
Joe D’Amato’s¬†Anthropophagus sees a group of friends on a Greek island terrorized by a tall cannibalistic man of mysterious origin. No more explanation needed because there’s honestly nothing much else to say. It’s the way D’Amato shows everything, his style, which really makes this something to see. Truly nasty bit of work. Goes well together with a want for blood, guts, and flesh wounds of all shapes and sizes.
Absurd1Moving on to 1981, D’Amato comes back with a spiritual sequel to his earlier¬†Anthropophagus from 1980 –¬†Absurd is the story of a priest chasing down a monster whose blood coagulates incredibly fast, rendering it near impossible to kill, and its killing is unstoppable.
This isn’t near as good as¬†Anthropophagus, still it is some more savagery from D’Amato whose nastiness knows no bounds at times.
A ton of head action here: no, not a blowjob, I’m talking heads being drilled, heads being sawed, et cetera. If you’re in need of a bit of rough violence, this is certainly the ticket. However, as I said, D’Amato doesn’t come back near as good with this film as he did with the previous.
These two films make an interesting, nasty double feature. Don’t say I didn’t warn you – not plot heavy, but definitely thick with murder!

Blood Feast (1963)/ Two Thousand Maniacs! (1964)
BloodFeast
The second double feature (out of 4) on this list, it’s another one with both titles from the same director. This time, it’s the Godfather of Gore, Mr. Herschell Gordon Lewis.
The entree: 1963’s¬†Blood Feast.
While this is by no means a great film, it’s definitely ambitious in terms of the blood and gore. With¬†Blood Feast – the story of a killer slaying women in order to get blood to appease an Egyptian goddess – Lewis began introducing the world to his vibrant brand of gore horror. Right from the very beginning of the film, its first sequence comes off totally awesome and bizarre; a proper portion of H.G. Lewis signature style gory makeup effects. So pretty much immediately you’ll know whether or not you’re in for his type of filmmaking. I dig it and think it’s nasty as hell. This is one ridiculously fun and equally rotten bit of gore horror.
two-thousand-maniacs-movie-poster-1964-1020491581
After Lewis shocked with the previous little blood & guts flick, he came back swinging with a much better film the next year: Two Thousand Maniacs!
This one is the story six people who find themselves trapped in a town, deep down amongst the Southern U.S. and one by one they’re killed, as part of a celebration/their revenge for the town being destroyed in the Civil War.
Talk about bloody! The poster does not lie. Early on in the days of splatter horror movies, H.G. was rocking it hard. Furthermore, there’s a real dreamy quality to Lewis’ filmmaking and I feel that’s a part of appreciating what he does; sure, it’s kind of cheap, yes it is also tame compared to things today. But is it really tame? I don’t think so. Either way, there’s a certain atmosphere Lewis creates which not a lot of people take into account. Sort of an avant-garde-trash mixture. Bless him. This is a wonderfully fun and bloody piece of work.
These two Hershell Gordon Lewis movies work so well together, though, the second is much better. This gives me my fill of organs and bleeding cuts and slashed throats and more. A perfect Halloween splatterfest!

Eraserhead (1977)
ERASERHEAD - UK PosterMy full review is here.

One of my three favourite Davids Рanother one comes later (and the third is my dad) РLynch dropped his first feature film onto the midnight circuit in 1977 with the existentially horrifying and viscerally churning Eraserhead.
The story‚Ķ ah, if you don’t already know what this movie is, there’s no real point trying to explain it. Maybe best put: the story of a man living in an unbearable industrial landscape, whose girlfriend gets pregnant and then they both must deal with it after coming out a tiny monster. Oh, and don’t forget the woman who lives in the radiator.
A whole mind trip of a film, this Lynch masterpiece has tons of the existential dread happening, from start to finish. But the visuals – holy fuck, the visuals! There are moments even some hardcore horror hounds find nauseating, simply because of the way Lynch shows us his imagery. I won’t ruin anything for those who’ve not seen it. Needless to say, you may never look at a turkey or chicken again in the same way once you’re ready to carve it up.
Fun note: Lynch still says to this day no one has ever really pinpointed what the film is about, for him.

Dans Ma Peau a.k.a In My Skin (2002)
d6This French film is the story of a woman who experiences a bad injury while at a party, then becomes increasingly obsessed with self harm – serious cutting.
A lot of people might find themselves flinching throughout large portions of this one. Honestly, it’s a tough piece of cinema. The amount of nasty cutting and self-violence here is extraordinary. Perhaps what makes the blood and makeup effects here so devastatingly effective is the fact we get inside the headspace of the main character – also the director and writer, talented woman – and come to actually care about her, maybe some of us will identify with her. So this takes it to another level. Go into this expecting you may turn it off due to discomfort.

Hostel (2005)/ Hostel: Part II (2007)
hostelFor my full review of 2005’s¬†Hostelclick here

For my full review of the sequel – click here

Another double bill, again each from the same director. This one would actually make a great quartet feature with H.G. Lewis, come to think of it.

Say what you want about Eli Roth, he’s effective. Can you honestly say the special makeup effects in¬†Hostel aren’t well executed? If so, you’re kidding yourself. You might not like how Roth plays out his film, you may not even like the content. There’s just simply no fucking way you’re convincing me the blood and gore here isn’t properly nasty.
Hostel came out and turned up the label “torture porn” (get what it implies but hate the term). The whole thing, to me, is a sleazy masterpiece of bloody horror. Its first half plays like a roadtrip comedy with the three dudes, cut with bits and pieces of murder. Once the second half begins, Roth takes us on a gory ride. That eyeball effect? Come on‚Ķ don’t let whatever your opinion of Roth/the movie overall may be cloud your judgement: this is some hardcore brutality. There are plenty more bits to “enjoy” when it comes to all the bloody goodness, the eyeball is my favourite.
Hostel-Part-II-New-Poster-horror-movies-42168_1296_1920I wasn’t expecting a good follow-up, honestly. Regardless of that, though,¬†Hostel: Part II is one hell of a sequel from Roth. Of course the end turns out to be a nice little feminist twist, but most of the film sees a trio of women in peril, as opposed to the three dudes from the first. The savagery is just as prevalent here. Love the homage to Erzebet Bathory with the bloodletting bath scene. Also, I’m always a big fan of piece of shit men getting their dicks cut off. So there’s that.
Both of these films are incredibly horrific, in their own ways while still being similar. Even better than that, I find the sequel Roth came up with did well with creating an entire universe with the story, going deeper into the global club of psychopaths who round up victims for murder tourists to have a go at. On top of all the bleeding and the screams and the terror, there’s also a cherry of a decent plot, too.

Island of Death (1976)
91Y5dcJMyVL._SL1500_
Back to another of the infamous Video Nasties. And I’m not putting this on the list all due to it being on there, either. Only awhile ago did I actually get the chance to see this, but christ‚Ķ what a doozy.
In 1976, director¬†Nico Mastorakis put out¬†Island of Death after seeing how well Tobe Hooper did with his indie shocker¬†The Texas Chain Saw Massacre only two years before. Except without much of an intent, as I feel Hooper had with his own film, Mastorakis only wanted to bring the awe with a sadistic and perverse plot based around a British couple – who say they’re recently married yet are actually later revealed to be a brother-sister incest duo – wreaking absolute havoc on people while visiting a Greek island. Strangely enough, for two inbreeding siblings, they kill people who they deem sinful.
You’ll find yourself, most certainly, struggling to get through this because it’s not particularly good, in regards to plot or story. Neither is it overly well-acted. It’s the brutish violence and boundless depravity which will take you in. The blood flows and the gory scenes will make you understand easily how this ended up on the Video Nasty list.

Masters of Horror: “Imprint” (dir. Takashi Miike) (2006)
imprintMy vote for¬†most disturbing segment ever made for television – Takashi Miike’s¬†Imprint from the horror anthology series¬†Masters of Horror.
Miike has turned up on another list I did for Halloween this year (for his 1999 horror-thriller Audition). He comes back here again with a vengeance.
Without giving away too much, an American traveler who once visited Japan for a time goes back for another trip. When he looks to find the geisha with which he connected so emotionally on his first visit, she is nowhere to be found, and he soon begins to unravel the devastating mystery surrounding her disappearance.
Think it sounds okay? One¬†of the most disturbing movies I’ve ever seen, and it was a television episode; though, it wasn’t allowed to air if I’m not mistaken. I bought the two seasons of this show and found myself blown away by this one in particular. Lots of nastiness from one of the true masters, Takashi Miike.

Videodrome (1983)
videodromeFor my full review, click here.

A¬†personal favourite of mine, David Cronenberg’s¬†Videodrome is similar, in a few respects, to what he was doing in¬†eXistenZ¬†later down the road. However, they’re definitely different, vastly so, as this 1983 classic goes much harder and more metaphorically at the body horror sub-genre.
Sleazy TV producer Max Renn (James Woods) searches for the ultimate in raw, real content for his channel. In his search, Max comes across an ultra-real show named “Videodrome”, featuring what seems to be actual snuff and torture, et cetera. Slowly drawn in, his quasi-girlfriend Nick Brand (Deborah Harry) goes to audition for the show, having an interest in masochism particularly. What happens next takes Max to the brink of reality and sanity at once.
Cronenberg is one of the genius filmmakers of cinema, even better that he’s Canadian (as I am one; he’s a national treasure). He’s very much an auteur, I would say he’s pretty much the king of body horror. Even further than that, I’d definitely say Cronenberg is at least ONE of the godfathers of the sub-genre. Lately he’s moved a little bit away, which is fine. You just cannot deny his power. Some of the effects here, provided by maestro artist Rick Baker, are simply unforgettable – the fleshy VHS tape, the mutilated/deformed bodies, and so on. Plus, on top of all the body horror, as is his style, Cronenberg also gets into how we relate to media, whether movies or television, what have you. Very interesting movie and also harrowing in terms of its body horror imagery.

Haute Tension (a.k.a High Tension a.k.a Switchblade Romance) (2003)
high_tensionFor my full review, click here.

Alexandre Aja is a favourite of mine, in terms of modern horror filmmakers who have emerged over the past 15 years. He’s vicious, funny, he’s displayed – in some of his films – that practical special makeup effects still have a place in post-2000 horror, it isn’t all about CGI. Most of all, I think he wears the biggest and best of his influences on his sleeve.
The story of Marie and Alexia, two college friends – they head for a vacation back to Alexia’s parents home in the country, deep in the cornfields. On their first night, a killer comes knocking at the door. Systematically he murders the family, except for Alexia – all the while, Marie is hiding upstairs in a room at the top of the house.¬†Marie manages to slip into the killer’s creepy truck before he whisks Alexia off. This begins an intensely vicious night of cat-and-mouse maneuvering, swimming in blood.
I never once saw where this horror movie was going the first time I saw it. Then when you watch it over and over again, which I’ve done (because I fucking love it), it’s interesting to watch knowing where it will go and still find yourself enthralled. There are some of the most perfect special makeup effects in¬†High Tension. It has such a great 1970s/1980s horror sensibility, one of the biggest reasons why I can’t get enough of this Aja masterpiece. Some will tell you the twist is something you’ll see coming. I don’t believe that; people who say those things, some of them anyways, are usually just naysayers unable to point out¬†anything particularly bad about a movie they don’t like (for whatever reason). You’ll be blown away, or in love depending on how sick you are like myself, by all the blood and gore from start to finish. Plus, the performances are incredible, even the near mute killer. This one is a definite shocker you need on the Halloween movie marathon list. If you don’t dig subtitles, get over it or miss out on a fantastic piece of modern horror-gore cinema.

Macabre (1980)/ Demons (1985)
macabre_posterMoving on to our next – and fittingly final – double bill: back to back Lamberto Bava madness!
To start, the 1980 horror (amazingly it is loosely based on a true story)¬†Macabre. This one is insanely fun in the sickest horror sense. A woman is reeling from the death of her extramarital lover; they were in a car accident and he was decapitated. After a 12-month stay in an institution, she gets out and heads back to the apartment where she and her lover would meet to make love and be together. Soon, her landlord begins to suspect there’s still something going on between the woman and her lover.
So that description alone should intrigue you + the poster art there! To tell you the truth, the poster itself I’ve got there is a bit telling. But still, not like my description wasn’t either. If you want some nasty horror dealing with dead bodies and psychosexual tension, this will make any Halloween properly disturbing with a nice spate of – you guessed it – macabre imagery.demons_1_poster_01After Macabre‘s¬†more subtle story, believe it or not, is the 1985 cult classic¬†Demons. For those who don’t know, Lamberto Bava is the son of revered Italian horror/giallo director Mario Bava (see: A Bay of Blood & more). So while his father was an absolute powerhouse overall in cinema, not someone I would banish to simply being a great genre director but a true artist, Lamberto doesn’t quite rise to that height. That being said, he is still an amazing horror director.¬†Demons is an all-out barn burner: a bunch of people are trapped in a theatre, home to demonic entities, and they proceed to kill/possess everyone possible inside. Honestly, there’s nothing else to say about the plot – it is what it is, and that’s all right. This is one wild piece of horror, similar to a zombie film yet these are demons; the more they possess people, the greater their numbers. Not only that, the special makeup effects in this one are gnarly and awesome as hell. You have to put this one on if you’re watching Lamberto Bava, it’s a wild ride, and a nice contrast piece to¬†Macabre, a very different sort of horror. These two movies together will really get your blood flowing. Turn Halloween into a night of terror with this double feature full of depravity and utter chaos.

Offspring (2009)
offspring_xlg It’s strange because so many people seem to have seen Lucky McKee’s¬†The Woman from 2011, yet inexplicably ignore its predecessor – the 2009 indie Offspring.
Based on a novel by Jack Ketchum, and subsequently his screenplay for the film, this is a tale of the remaining cannibals from an old clan who move in on a nearby town and begin to wreak havoc on its people.
There are some intense bits here, especially with the inclusion of the feral children in the clan; one scene immediately comes to mind when a woman walks into her kitchen, only to find blood and body parts and kids nibbling on the tasty little bits they’re holding. This is one really macabre story and its execution I find pretty damn good; not perfect, but good enough. Not sure why this one has a super low rating on IMDB, perhaps some might find it cliched or overdone, I don’t know really. The mind of Jack Ketchum comes out pretty nicely, to my mind. He is a unique and terrifying writer.
Either way, I do know this has enough satisfyingly disturbing bits of gore and morbidity in it you might spend a few minutes before bedtime making sure no cannibals are hiding out in the kitchen.

Angst (1983)
ANGSTCULTEPICSNEWSFor a full review and examination of this shocker, click here.

Loosely based on the real murderer Werner Kniesek, Angst is the tale of a madman released from prison, after which he brutalizes and murders a family in their small home.
Truly, to me, this 1983 cult horror film out of Austria is actually an examination of institutionalization crossed with an already violent psychopath, almost the meeting of two immovable forces crashing against one another. Right from the first scene, we know how madly gone the psychotic (Erwin Leder; best known from Das Boot) has become in his time through the prison system.
And that’s part of why¬†Angst is so powerfully disturbing – aside from the messy, bloody bits, the entirety of the film has us knocking around in the head of this man. We’re never given any of what’s going on outside of him, anything from a different perspective, but rather this depraved killer is our guide, our sherpa into the heart of utter darkness.
If your Halloween season hasn’t been viscerally disturbing enough, get ahold of¬†Angst. It’s becoming better known over the past few years, particularly with the Blu ray release, however, it’s still not widely recognized enough in my opinion. There are easily drawn comparisons between John McNaughton’s¬†Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. Though, trust me: this movie is far different, it gets deeper into the brain matter of its killer and really tries to strip things down to push us into the main character’s uncomfortable headspace.

Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975)
MV5BMTQyMDQ4NTY2Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMjk2NDQ3MQ@@._V1_UY1200_CR110,0,630,1200_AL_This 1975¬†Pier Paolo Pasolini-directed shockfest is one you’ll undoubtedly see turn up on most of the disturbing horror lists out there. Anybody in their right mind will find this completely raw and hateful nasty, no doubt about that. The most hardcore horror fans readily admit this is one insane piece of cinema.
While I do think there’s a major part of this movie speaking to fascism, et cetera, the majority of what you’ll find incessantly horrifying here is the imagery. And it’s not subtle, not even for a hot second.
Think – have you ever thought to yourself “I’d love to see a movie where people commit sodomy, eat human faeces, then throw in some violent torture/murder and a suicide to boot”? If so, this one is for you!
Okay, I don’t make this one sound in the slightest appealing. Because it’s not and I’m not trying to fool you here. This is a list of disturbing horror to do solely with imagery, effects, and so on. You won’t find a more visceral piece of cinema ever, maybe. Many argue this has no purpose, but under all its nasty and in-your-face nausea, Pasolini had something to say with Sal√≤¬†and after all these years – four decades later – people are still debating it, still fighting it, the controversy surrounding the film and Pasolini himself continues to burn in the public heart of film lovers. So can you say, either way, love it or hate it, that Pasolini’s movie is not effective? You’re kidding yourself if the answer is no.
Putting this one on could ruin October for you; the entire month. But if you’re adventurous, and a little messed up, pop this in and rock out to the Pasolini mindfuck machine.


Thanks for reading another of my Halloween lists this year. Once more, as always, I’m hoping you’ll find at least one flick to put on during October. Especially the closer it gets to the 31st. This list will induce shock and awe, I know it does for me. These are all pretty wild movies, to me. If you have any other suggestions for blood, guts, skulls and assorted nasty stuff, please drop a comment and let me know in what sort of madness you’ll be indulging over the next couple weeks.

A Halloween List: The October Non-Horror Fan Horror Guide

So I’ve already done several lists for October and the anticipation of Halloween. Up until now it’s been for those who really love horror, or at least the initiated. This list is a little different.
Knowing many friends of mine aren’t exactly huge horror-ites, and also realizing tons of people out there like a little spook around the fall when Halloween approaches, I decided to put together a nice list for those types.
Here’s a list of movies for a decent scare at the right time of year. Hope you’ll enjoy!


Eyes of Laura Mars (1978)
MPW-55302This 1978 thriller, written by David Zelag Goodman and John Carpenter whose Halloween came out the same year, is a nice spooky treat for Halloween. Especially if you want something creepy but would rather not spend the rest of the night wondering if someone is going to kill you.
Chic photographer Laura Mars (Faye Dunaway) begins to see through the eyes of a murderer – transported to the scene of the crimes, during the crime itself, she sees visions of death. When she goes to the police and tries to get their help, she becomes further involved in a series of killings that she is powerless to help and forced to watch.
Eyes of Laura Mars definitely has power, it isn’t not scary. However, there’s not a ton of slasher killings or any kind of super graphic horror. Plain and simple: this is a solid thriller film with a supernatural element. You can watch this to get a decent chill and actually get to sleep. Good one for a nice October evening.

The Innocents (1961)/ The Haunting (1963)
innocents01-big
Here’s a solid double feature full of ghosts, spirits, or the otherwise disembodied. Plus, they’re both based on wonderful literary sources.
First up, based on Henry James’ novel¬†The Turn of the Screw, 1961’s¬†The Innocents follows a young governess in Victorian England whose charge of caring for two children becomes a battle of wits against the supernatural, as she comes to believe they are being possessed, the house itself – in her mind (or is it?) – a haunted tomb of ghosts.
There are plenty of reasons to love this film. One: Truman Capote was one half of the screenwriting duo alongside William Archibald. Two:¬†The Turn of the Screw is not lost in this adaptation, as so many great sources come to find themselves in more modern adaptations of classic novels/stories. Three: Martin Scorsese always lists this as one of the scariest movies of all-time and though I don’t care about celebrity opinions, I consider Scorsese an artists first and foremost, as well as a a film lover and fan, so his opinion carries weight for me. Four? The movie is fucking scary. Honestly, you don’t need a bunch of new, modern looking sets or special effects, none of that, when the story and the atmosphere of the film are crafted so well together. This is one of those ghost stories that may honestly stick in your mind, but there’s nothing nasty here: just pure haunted goodness.
haunting_1963_poster_02That leads me to the second feature on the bill – 1963’s Robert Wise-directed classic,¬†The Haunting. Again, this is based on a piece of literature which is most certainly on a scale of greatness:¬†The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson. There’s something truly haunting about this movie. Before Wes Craven and his brand of horror, long before Eli Roth, Rob Zombie, and other modern horror filmmakers I dig, legendary director Robert Wise gave us this atmospheric, moody and completely unsettling ghost story. The plot itself is deceptively simple yet amazing: Dr. Markaway, whose research involves that of the afterlife, the supernatural, conducts experiments in Hill House; two women and a young man are a part of the events. The way Wise creates a palpable air of dread, not unlike¬†The Innocents, it creeps up under your skin and really takes hold for every last bit of its 112-minute runtime. There’s nothing disturbing, so to speak, but you will find yourself spooked afterwards.
No two ghost stories put onto film have ever gone so well together on a double bill as these classic movies. I’d recommend them for a couple partners or solo viewing, as they’re films you really want to listen to, pay attention and let their aesthetic draw you in. Nice scare for two people sitting in a dark room!

* For my full review of The Hauntingclick here

Sleepy Hollow (1999)
sleepy_hollow_ver1
Honestly, if you don’t like Tim Burton’s latest stuff over the past few years, fine. But please don’t try and tell me he’s never done anything good. That’s bullshit. From¬†Beetlejuice to¬†Edward Scissorhands to the 1999 adaptation of a classic creepy tale into¬†Sleepy Hollow, there’s no Halloween done proper if you don’t at least toss on SOMETHING by Burton. Even his¬†Batman films were gothic and very dark.
Here, you’ll get a dose of awesome actors, riotous wit, spooky Halloween-like imagery, and even a tiny dose of nastiness with decapitated heads rolling around like it’s nobody’s business! Burton brings his beautifully macabre cartoon-ish style to this timeless, classic story, and Johnny Depp puts in a solid performance as the clueless yet somehow knowledgeable Ichabod Crane. Pop this on for a nice treat near Halloween, or better yet on the very night. Real good one for a group, too.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
Invasion-poster-1
Many will probably vote that the best adaptation of this Jack Finney novel is the original from 1956. Me, I like this 1970s version, as it came about after McCarthyism, all the Black Listing in Hollywood, along with all the new paranoias and fears of new generations, as well as the growing fears of the older generation slipping into the twilight.
In San Francisco, several people begin to discover humans are being replaced by clones, which are really an alien life form inhabiting humanity from the inside out. As they start to take over more rapidly, the group bands together in order to try and survive.
A bunch of solid actors (one of my favourites included – fellow Canadian Donald Sutherland), a tight and tense script jam packed with paranoid madness, and everything executed so well in terms of the look and feel of the movie, you couldn’t ask for better. This will give you enough of a scare to satisfy those spooky needs this October. And you may never forget the final frame, I certainly haven’t yet.

House of Wax (1953)/ The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971)
house_of_wax
The next double feature is all about that Vincent Price, baby!
To start:¬†House of Wax from 1953. Anybody ever says “Whann remakes whann I hate them”, say “Shut the fuck up!” and remind them even in the ’50s remakes were a thing. Starring Price as a disfigured wax sculptor, this was a remake of¬†Mystery of the Wax Museum from two decades previous. There’s a definitely creepy aspect to the entire movie and not just that, it looks fantastic. Some people nowadays, mostly young, young people, say they can’t “get into” certain old movies. To that, I don’t know what I’ll say‚Ķ sad, really. Because some films from the 1940s and 1950s are better to look at than any modern movies. Not that I prefer old films over newer ones; honestly, a lot of what I love comes from the ’70s, ’80s, and post-2000, so really I’m not trying to be hip here. I honestly generally feel there was a beauty to the look of pure film, everything shot on stock back then, as opposed to so much digital in this era. Don’t mean to bash digital either, it’s great and has advantages. Just throw this in and let it take you away. The horror will come at you through the dark and beautiful imagery of the film.
abominable_dr_phibes_xlgAfter a bit of ’50s era Vincent Price, get a load of The Abominable Dr. Phibes from 1971.
Over three decades before Jigsaw reared his terrifying head, the operatic and horrible Dr. Phibes was exacting revenge on the nine doctors whom he deemed responsible for his wife dying. With lots of candy campiness, an on-point Price, and some of the most extravagant art design/set decoration you’ll ever see in a horror movie,¬†The Abominable Dr. Phibes is absolutely a good, creepy little horror movie that’s not full of unsettling slashing. Rather, it comes off very much like a horror musical of sorts, without the musical numbers, but in the sense it takes on that grand artistic form, like a massive stage play.
These two Vincent Price movies go well together, displaying two very different sides to the same incredible actor. As well as the fact you’ll find a few scares throughout this double bill while having fun.

Taste of Fear a.k.a Scream of Fear (1961)
1-scream-of-fear-aka-taste-of-fear-everettThis 1961 Hammer horror film, best known as¬†Scream of Fear, is – according to co-star Christopher Lee, legend, gentleman – the best the studio ever put out. I’d probably agree with that sentiment, honestly. As much as I love a bunch of the Hammer horrors which came out years and years now, there’s something terribly dreadful about this one. It’s made out of pure suspense, streaming out of every scene.
I’ll give you only this: a young woman in a wheelchair goes back to her father’s estate after a long time away, continually seeing his dead body on the property though told he is on a trip. From there, the terror builds.
Perfect for a couple people or just a solitary watch. Let this one creep on you and it’ll be a rewarding bit of horror without scarring you for life.

Nightwatch (1997)/ Zodiac (2007)
nightwatch-posterAnother double feature – each about a killer, though, one happens to be based on a real life case.
Beginning with¬†Nightwatch, the director’s English-language remake of his own 1994 film¬†Nattevagten, this is the story of a young man named Martin Bells (played by Ewan McGregor) who gets the job as nightwatchman at a morgue. Unfortunately, at the same time, the city is under threat of a serial killer taking the lives of various women. When Martin becomes a suspect in the murders, things get tricky.
This is a slow burn and it’s full of red herring material, which makes a fun horror with tons of excellently executed thrills full of suspense and taut tension. Also, there’s McGregor, Patricia Arquette, Josh Brolin, Nick Nolte, even ole Brad Dourif comes out to play. Nice, creepy flick.
zodiac_ver2_xlg
From 1997, let’s jump a decade to David Fincher’s¬†Zodiac, based on a book by Robert Graysmith (played here by Jake Gyllenhaal) about the real life case of the Zodiac Killer who to this day has never been caught, nor identified concretely.
Fincher is one hell of a filmmaker, as a director he is another person I’d easily classify as an auteur. No matter the subject, you can tell you’re watching a Fincher film almost soon as the first frame has faded or cut. With¬†Zodiac, the complex look of Fincher comes to the darkness shrouding everything over the 1970s when the Zodiac terrorized the San Francisco area. He gives even more depth to all the fear and chaos surrounding the hunt for this madman, along with a great script and amazing actors like Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr., Mark Ruffalo, and more. This one is chilling and it sticks to you like smoke after the finale. You almost want to turn around after it finishes, just to make sure the Zodiac hasn’t wandered up behind you.
These are two looks at the process of a murder case –¬†one fictional, the other all too real – each film with their own aesthetic, this is an interesting double feature to go for closing in on Halloween.

The Night of the Hunter (1955)
poster_thenightofthehunterStarring the excellent Robert Mitchum and Shelley Winters,¬†The Night of the Hunter was the first film to give knuckle tattoos a bad name (coming from a man with tattoos on his knuckles). Most wouldn’t call this horror, they’d say it’s mystery and film-noir wrapped up into one maybe. To me, this has the markings of a good psychological horror-thriller. With Mitchum playing a man after a huge sum of money, and willing to go through anyone – even some kids – to get it, there’s plenty of room for terrifying moments, suspense ratcheted to the max, and¬†actor-turned-director Charles Laughton uses every chance he gets to execute all of the tension built up throughout the film. Also, apparently Mitchum did some uncredited directorial work alongside Laughton, which is pretty neat. Either way, this is an intense little movie which I’d definitely call spooky, creepy at the very least. And it came out 60 years ago! Still has a lasting effect.

The Changeling (1980)
changeling
Directed by Peter Medak (The Krays/Romeo Is Bleeding) and starring one of the greatest actors ever, George C. Scott, this 1980 horror is a haunted house film with a great plot and wonderful story.
The Changeling sees Scott’s character move into a large, old mansion after a tragic accident takes his wife and child from him. Within the walls of the new place, he begins to experience strange, supernatural events all around. Soon, he figures out the house’s secrets.
While there are a couple disturbing plot elements, I do feel like Medak’s haunted house horror movie is scary while not being too outrageously unsettling. So for the people who want a nice little spooky movie for Halloween season,¬†The Changeling makes for a solid pick – especially if it’s the haunted house sub-genre you’re craving.

Pan’s Labyrinth (2006)
pans_labyrinth_ver11_xxlgGuillermo del Toro is a consistently, constantly interesting and evolving artist. There’s something utterly magical about his 2006 dark fantasy film¬†Pan’s Labyrinth, which is just about indescribable.
Taking place in Spain during 1944, del Toro’s story follows a young girl whose life around her crumbles while the eye inside her mind comes alive, sometimes in the most terrifying ways imaginable.
Not saying there isn’t anything at all disturbing here; most certainly, there is. However, I think it’s somehow presented in a digestible way. Doesn’t lose any of its impact in that del Toro gives us everything wrapped in fantasy. Just makes the terror more palatable, in a way I can’t describe any better than I’ve already done. Mostly, it’s the incredible and fascinating visual architecture of this movie that will draw you in: whether it’s simply beautifully captured exterior shots or the dark realm of the fantastical imagination at work, this fantasy horror film has teeth and yet still I would recommend it to anyone who isn’t strictly into horror. This is mostly fantasy with little horror edges.

The Last Will and Testament of Rosalind Leigh (2012)
Rosalind-Leigh-Poster
I’d heard the name of this movie announced a long while before it ever got released, and knew of the premise, so altogether I was pretty pumped to finally get a look at this one.¬†The Last Will and Testament of Rosalind Leigh is extremely interesting in that it’s centred around a single character while an entire world almost is built around him through the story and its plot.
A young man who collects antiques inherits his mother’s house after she dies, and goes on to discover it’s a place devoted to a strange cult; believing his mother to somehow, some way still be present in the house, she may or may not be trying to send him a message, possibly even a warning.
There’s no way to describe this film any further without ruining things. You’ll find yourself surprised if you go in knowing only the basic premise. Even what I said there is probably more than you need to know beforehand. Still, this will slowly grow on you. There’s a dark and sombre aesthetic all around about this film and the lead actor, Aaron Poole, does great stuff with a plot he basically has to carry almost entirely on his own. Featuring excellent narration/voice-over by the massively talented Vanessa Redgrave, I can’t think of a creepier yet fitting movie for the non-horror initiated. It’s a Halloween season film, deserving of your time. Scary, but won’t wreck you. Some fun, spooky storytelling.

Nosferatu (1922) /Vampyr (1932)
4f11b55f57612f06fe9638b99f6c66e6_500x735
The last two titles, one more double feature, are fittingly along similar lines.
First, F.W. Murnau’s¬†Nosferatu – perhaps the first unofficial adaptation ever? I’m no film historian, though, I don’t think I’m far off. That’s no matter. This is basically Bram Stoker’s¬†Dracula adapted to screen in the silent era, without proper authorization from the Stoker estate; Murnau was promptly sued, I believe.
Doesn’t change a thing. The origin of creepiness in the horror genre comes out of Murnau and his German Expressionist take on famous Count Dracula and his visit from Jonathan Harker. Of course here it’s Count Orlock and Hutter. What a haunting classic. Isn’t the FIRST horror movie, though, it’s one of the first – if not the first – with such a heavy impact.¬†Not overrated in the slightest; the only people who say those types of things are the ones who have no idea about what good movies are, anyways. The individual shots are almost all tableaus of expressionism, especially once Orlock begins to creep among the shadows in the night throughout his castle.
9203650982_9341dc2c96_bThat brings me to the other half of the bill – Carl Theodor Dreyer’s 1932 horror¬†Vampyr based on a book by Sheridan Le Fanu.
Talk about method and technique when it comes to horror, here Dreyer piles on the surrealist, dreamy imagery until there’s absolutely nothing left to us but brain and bone. It’s not one of those floor you, devastate you, terrifying your dreams into nightmares sort of horrors, but¬†Vampyr came far before its time. It is one of the most wonderfully eccentric and gorgeous to look at black-and-white films I’ve ever seen with my own two eyes, personally. I’ve owned the Criterion Collection DVD for years now and it’s a movie I can watch over and over. Perfect to get your spook on during October.
This double feature will have you in a dream-like state of imagery, where you won’t find terror in blood or gore or jump scares. Instead, you’ll find the horrifying aspects of these movies build up in your brain and the lingering shadows of these movies together will have you remembering scenes for weeks to come. Great duo of classics from the early half of the 20th century, like a lesson in horror history.


Another list has come to an end. As I’ve said before, I’m hoping there’s at least one or two titles on here you’ll come across, enjoy the sound of, and then indulge over the month of October. So many of these are perfect for Halloween. These are great movies in general, though, I really feel they’re right for movie lovers who aren’t exactly into the horror genre but don’t like the stuff us other horror hounds are lapping up regularly. Find a scare or two in here, ripe for Halloween. And please, let me know what you think or if you’ve enjoyed (or hated) any of them before now.
Cheers and #HappyHalloween!