Author: fenrisfil

The Mummy (1932)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Tonight’s movie is the original Mummy from 1932. Not to be confused with the now, more famous 90’s remake. That was a very loose remake, though not as loose as Alex Kurtzman’s debacle from 2017. The original Mummy was created to follow on from the success of Dracula and Frankenstein. Like those films it became a franchise with multiple films to it, though none were direct sequels. The movie is directed by Karl Freund, mostly known as a cinematographer. His credits as a cinematographer includes Metropolis, Dracula. Key Largo and the I Love Lucy TV series. His cinematographer here is Charles Stumar, who would later work on “Werewolf of London“. Playing the titular Mummy is of course Boris Karloff, already big enough a name to be credited simply as “Karloff”.

In 1921, A “Sir Joseph Whemple” (Arthur Byron) led archaeological expedition uncovers the Mummy of Imhotep, an Egyptian high priest. Buried with him is a casket with a curse on it. When Whemlpe’s assistant opens the casket, he finds an ancient scroll within and begins to read it. As he does so the Mummy comes to life, takes the scroll and leaves, driving the assistant insane. Years later another expedition led by Whemple’s son (David Manners) is guided by a mysterious Egyptian “Ardath Bey” (Karloff) to uncover the tomb of princess Ankh-es-en-Amon. Bey, who is really Imhotep seeks to resurrect his ancient lover, but finds that she has actually been re-incarnated as a woman named “Helen Grosvenor” (Zita Johann). He now plans to abduct and sacrifice her to free her soul to be re-animated in her old body.

Reunited Across Time

On the surface this could be seen as a bit of a Dracula rip off, yet Imhotep’s obsession over Helen is not by coincidence. The idea that Helen is a re-incarnation of Imhotep’s long dead lover was at the time unique to The Mummy. Now of course, ever since 1992’s “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” this has become a recurring theme for Dracula too. I think it’s safe to say Coppola had seen The Mummy, so this was probably where he got the idea from. Yes that means Coppola turned Dracula into a knock off of a knock off of Dracula! Still, it worked well, so the idea was good. It works here as well in it’s original form.

The romantic element does add a nice bit of tragedy to the story. Indeed this is more of a Gothic horror than a monster movie. This gives both Johann and Karloff a chance to really shine. Indeed, you could argue this was Karloff’s best performance. The man was actually a very capable actor, it’s just when you are typecast as monsters you don’t get many chances to show it. The rest of the cast are solid too, though the plot doesn’t ask that much from them. This is a short film (73 mins), so the main story speeds through pretty quickly. A good part of the run time is taken up with the backstory, leaving less time for the main plot. Apparently the original version was longer, but that (Now lost) footage was mostly additional flashback material.

The Modern Lens

As tends to be the case with the classic Universal horror, the movie really makes the black and white sing. With a gifted cinematographer in the directors chair you’d expect no less. The use of hard contrast and clever lighting make every scene stand out. The flashback scenes look great too, even if we have to watch them through a weird TV screen. The sad thing here is the effect is actually really clever work from director Karl Freund and cinematographer Charles Stumar. TV’s were experimental in 1932, viewers at the time wouldn’t have thought “TV” whenever Imhotep uses his magic pool. The intention was to show a somewhat degraded image, to make it dream like. Unfortunately to me it just looks like Karloff is watching the Telly. If they had just skipped the black border, it would have aged better.

Some of the other effects show their age, but really most of it holds up. Not bad for a 93 year old movie. This movie looks better than some movies half that age. The recycled music and silence doesn’t grate too much here either (Compared to Frankenstein or Dracula), though using the exact same Swan Lake opening as they did with Dracula robs the movie of some originality. One year later and we’d start to see custom scores made for movies like this. Overall, while the movie still looks good, the plot feels a bit unbalanced. It is more concerned with the backstory, than the main story. Still, this is a strong 6/10. Worth a watch for any fan of horror or black and white movies in general.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Frankenhooker (1990)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Today’s review is the cult horror comedy “Frankenhooker” from 1990. I’m a fan of the genre, but for some reason I’d never gotten around to this one. This is directed by Frank Henenlotter, who also co-wrote it along with Robert Martin. Henenlotter is most famous for another cult horror comedy, “Basket Case” from 1982. Music is by Joe Renzetti, who previously scored “Child’s Play”, “Dead and Burried” and even John Carpenter’s “Elvis” movie (The non-Elvis parts, obviously). This was made for $2.5m ($6m by today’s money), making it a low-mid budget horror. Basically this is a deliberate B-Movie, an intentionally B-like movie, but made to a slightly higher budget.

The movie stars James Lorinz as young mad scientist “Jeffrey Franken” and Patty Mullen as “Elizabeth Shelley” aka “Frankenhooker”. I think you can probably get the references in the names. A classic romance story. Boy meets girl. They get engaged. Girl accidentally kills herself with a remote controlled lawn mower. Boy keeps girls head in a freezer. Boy makes a load of hookers explode with super-crack and then re-animates girl using their body parts. Girl becomes partially possessed by her hooker body parts and runs off looking for Johns. Boy chases after girl. Will they end up happily ever after?

Piece by Piece

Well, this is certainly a silly movie, but I can’t say it is particularly hilarious. It is amusing in places though and in some cases possibly unintentionally. Elizabeth is meant to be overweight, apparently from a pretzels addiction. But the actress clearly isn’t overweight and so they basically got her to fully do up her outfit and stuff it with what I assume is clothes or paper. It looked ridiculous. That made me laugh more than the rest of the film, but I have no idea if that was intentional or they genuinely thought it would work. There actually wasn’t much need for her to be overweight either since she’s reduced to just a head shortly after the intro.

This is one of those movies that have nothing to it outside of the concept and what you see in the trailer. I wasn’t sure quite how much to cover with the synopsis. What I described is the entire first two acts, but that’s the basic premise and it’s all in the trailer. The movie takes a long time to get around to re-animating Elizabeth. It’s a typical horror built around a gimmicky concept, Quite often with these movies they don’t know what to do after the concept is activated (At least within their budget), so they pad out the build up instead. Still, thanks to James Lorinz wacky portrayal of Jeffrey Franken, the build up is just as amusing as the the actual Frankenhooker rampage.

Conclusion

Once we finally have our Frankenhooker loose in the red light district, the humor is about what you’d expect. It’s a brief pay off for the build up. I do have to give it to Patty Mullen for her portrayal of the monstrous prostitute. She gets a little repetitive but it’s an amusing routine. It is Lorinz that has to hold the film together though and he does a good job. What lets the film down is it seems to run out of ideas just as it gets going. I also got a little bored of people blowing up. It’s sort of one trick comedy gore here.

Ultimately this is a moderately amusing horror comedy that comes across a bit dated in both plot and execution. I enjoy horror comedies more than most, so this is a disappointment. It’s not a total disaster though and I can see why it achieved cult status. If you enjoy comedy horrors based just on ridiculousness then this could be for you. For me though I can only give it a strong 5/10. Best viewed with lots of beer.

Rating: 5 out of 10.

The Keep (1983)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For tonight’s movie I’m looking at the 1983 supernatural WW2 horror “The Keep”. This is from Oscar Nominated director Michael Mann. He got his nomination for “The Insider” (1999), he also gave us “The Last of the Mohicans” (1992), “Thief” (1981) and was the first person to bring Hannibal Lecter to the big screen in “Manhunter” (1986.) The Keep is one of Mann’s lowest rated movies, so stands out as a bit of an anomaly in his filmography. It’s also one of the films from the 80’s to feature a Tangerine Dream soundtrack (There are about 20 in all). Mann ‘s screenplay is an adaptation of F. Paul Wilson’s novel by the same name . Alex Thomson provides cinematography and it’s worth mentioning this was made only a couple of years after he performed that role for “Excalibur” (1981). I can definitely recognise a similar style.

The Keep is set in 1941 in Romania following the commencement of Operation Barbarossa. Captain Woermann (Jürgen Prochnow), arrives at an uninhabited citadel known as ‘the Keep’ with the aim of taking control of the Dinu Pass in the Carpathian Mountains. The fortress isn’t quite what it seems and after some greed soldiers accidentally release an ancient evil the troops begin to get killed in horrible ways. Sturmbannführer Kaempffer (Gabriel Byrne) is sent in to get to the bottom of it, assuming rebellion by the locals. As the mystery thickens he is forced to bring in Dr. Cuza (Ian McKellen) a Jewish profess that has studied this structure. However, he has his own agenda, as does the creature that lurks within the Keep.

Tangerine Dream and the Dry Ice Machine

I can see why this film was poorly received. I can also see why it has become a cult favourite over time. It is a strange film, definitely lacking in places, but for the most part it looks and sounds great. I say “For the most part”, because there are definitely some very dated looking effects in here. But the cinematography is excellent and Thomson seems to excel with filming fog/smoke. The creature actually looks pretty cool in his various forms, perhaps most impressive earlier when he was largely smoke with a burning face. Meanwhile the Tangerine Dream soundtrack gives everything a dreamlike feel, something a lot of the cinematography leans into. The music doesn’t always fit though, but it’s always pushed to the forefront, like this is a music video.

Between the music taking center stage, the great, but somewhat surreal visuals, the over the top gore, the occasionally clunky dialogue/acting and the very weird plot this could almost be a Giallo horror. For those new to my horror reviews, that’s an Italian style horror. It was at its peak in the 1970’s and very likely Mann was influenced by it for this 1983 movie. Now, while I said the gore was over the top, there actually isn’t that much of it. It’s just when there is gore it is bodies cut in half and heads exploding. Those effects though are not quite up to it, so in some cases, frankly, it looks silly. Not a deal breaker though. At least, not if you’ve seen as much 80’s horror as I have.

Greatness Doesn’t Always Come Right Away

The Keep includes some very strong cast on paper. However, I can only really single out Gabriel Byrne for his flawless execution of Nazi villain Erich Kaempffer. That said, he actually only gets a handful of scenes and none asked too much of him. Ian McKellen on the other hand put in one of his worst performances (I’ve seen) as Dr. Cuza. It’s worth noting, this was only his second feature film (Though he had plenty of other acting credits) and his first “Priest of Love” (1981) also received criticism for his acting. It just goes to show, some of the best actors didn’t arrive on the scene ready for success. It took time. McKellen was already a successful stage actor, but it took a while to adjust to movies. By the mid 90’s he was nailing it.

But perhaps it’s not fair to blame McKellen. The dialogue here just wasn’t that great. The directing in a lot of the scenes didn’t get the most out of the actors either. But the plot too is an issue. When you have a slow, dream like aesthetic and an hour and a half run time it’s hard to fit a plot with any real complexity in and do it justice. Here we have many characters that could have been interesting, a mystery with it’s own backstory (None of which ever really gets explained) and a series of events that requires a lot of moving parts to get to the end. On top of that, you have an entire platoon of Nazi’s to kill off. As a result, despite the many slow paced scenes, the movie feels rushed. They should have either simplified or gone for a longer run time.

Conclusion

If I were making it, I would have tried to simplify things a little so the plot doesn’t trip over it’s own legs so much and the remaining characters got a bit more development. I can’t help but think John Carpenter would have nailed this story as a director. It’s almost like it was designed for him, but Michael Mann got it instead and it is what it is. Ultimately though, I did enjoy this movie. As it stands, this is more of a spectacle than a story. Your mileage may depend on how much you enjoy Tangerine Dream and dry ice machines. Apparently that is exactly what I enjoy and so I’m going to rate it at a slightly generous 6.5/10.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Cursed (2005)

Posted on by fenrisfil

I went on a bit of a run of Werewolf movies at the start of the year after my disappointment with “The Wolf Man” (2025). After watching six of them I felt I’d cleaned the bad taste out of my mouth, but I had several left over. Naturally, I set some aside for my October reviews. Tonight’s movie is a Wes Craven film that I probably watched when it first came out, but 20 years later had totally forgotten about. I only know I watched it as I already had a rating for it on IMDb. The good news is while I forgot about it, I apparently liked it more this time around. We’ll get to that a bit later.

Wes Craven is mostly known for his two huge successes, Scream and Nightmare on Elm Street. Two franchises that both spawned 7-8 Sequels and a TV show. Between those movies Wes was very hit and miss. While most like “Serpent and the Rainbow” and the first “Hills Have Eyes” films, response to the likes of “Shocker”, “Vampire in Brooklyn” and “Deadly Friend” are mixed to poor. This film falls into the same category. So let’s have a look at it. While Craven directs, with the screenplay written by long time collaborator Kevin Williamson. Cinematography is by Robert McLachlan and music by Marco Beltrami.

Two Wolves

Ellie and Jimmy Myers (Played by Christina Ricci and Jesse Eisenberg respectively) are two orphaned siblings that share a house together and have a somewhat strained relationship. Jimmy is in college while Ellie is an associate producer for a late night TV show. One night while Ellie is driving Jimmy home they hit another car and after recovering and checking on the other car they are both attacked by a monstrous wolf.

Jimmy quickly suspects it is a Werewolf. Ellie though didn’t get a good look and thinks that is Jimmy’s imagination. Despite this, the next day the two begin to experience changes. Their instinct, aggression and strength all seem to have increased. But the changes aren’t stopping there. Jimmy realizes that the Werewolf that attacked them may not want the competition. But who was it? They need to find it, before it finds them! Oh and their dog has the curse too. I have no idea what you call that.

Passing Grade

There is nothing groundbreaking here. The plot is pretty straight forward despite a few swerves on the identity of the Werewolf that attacked them. Having a number of werewolves in the story including the two protagonists dealing with their curse does make it stand out a little, but they don’t really do that much with any of it. The two protagonists get a bit of time each, just enough to show their approaches (Denial Vs Exploration) and how it is impacting them, but little else. The other Werewolves have their identity kept secret and so we never get to explore how they live with the curse. It’s fine, but there were interesting things her that could have been developed.

The protagonists are both likable, which is something often missing in modern horror. Again though they don’t really give us anything new or interesting with them. Given this isn’t a particularly long film it was perhaps a mistake to have two leads, but it’s not a disaster. Craven and Williamson cover everything that needs to be covered and little else. That counts for the whole story, not just the characters. No time is wasted, scenes speed by, often moving on just as they are getting interesting and everything falls into place largely as you would expect it to. The pace means the movie doesn’t drag and it’s well directed and acted the whole way through. The end result is a movie that is reasonably enjoyable, yet also disappointing.

Production Hell

It is worth mentioning that this is a movie that went through it’s own production hell. There are actually at least three very different versions of this movie knocking around in the archives. The first was complete, save for the ending and music. It had very little in common with the released version outside of some of the cast. The movie was then almost entirely re-written and re-shot (Keeping only about 12 minutes) at the behest of Bob and Harvey Weinstein. Part of this seems to have been a desire for a PG-13 rating. The second version, which was complete enough to show audiences in test screenings (And receive a positive reaction), was also largely re-worked after Dimension Films voiced their own complaints.

The first version of the film was a very different story about a serial killer who learns his drive to kill comes from being born with the Werewolf curse. The second version plays up the tragedy side of these movies, something severely lacking in the final version. When seen by people, both versions are always said to be superior to what was released. Still, the final version isn’t all bad. Wes Craven is no stranger to studio interference. He had a similar experience with “Deadly Friend“, with the end result being nothing like he originally intended. At least this time around, the final movie has tonal consistency (Instead of feeling like two different movies glued together).

Conclusion

Overall, this isn’t a bad movie and it does have a Wes Craven feel to it. The acting, characters, plot and effects are all fine. It all works, but you can’t help but feel there was a lot more potential here and it was all wasted. Knowing about the other versions of the story, it seems we almost did get a better movie. Unfortunately, Werewolf movies are hard to get right and it’s no surprise the studio was completely clueless about how to do it. Wes Craven, for his part seems like he did know, but was never able to convince New Line of that. So we got what we got. This is a strong 5.5/10. My original IMDb score was a 4, which I’ve raised to a 6 (Rounding up). I guess it was better second time around.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Bay of Blood (1971)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Time for this years first trip into the world of Italian horror. This is a movie from Gialo legend Mario Bava. If you’ve been following my reviews, you may recall me waxing lyrical about “Blood and Black Lace” (1964). After that I always planned to watch more of his work. I’ve actually only seen three of Bava’s movies, but I always intended to increase that number. This particular movie was recommended to me on X, specifically as a movie that heavily influenced the slasher genre. Too much to pass up here and so I squeezed it in to my October viewing list. The screenplay is from Bava, Giuseppe Zaccariello and Filippo Ottoni. Bava does cinematography here and Stelvio Cipriani provides the music.

one night, at a bayside mansion, Countess “Federica Donati” is murdered. A short while later, the woman’s husband and apparent killer is stabbed to death. A suicide note is left behind for the countess, but the husbands body is missing by the time the police investigate. His daughter “Renata” and her husband “Albert” arrive at the bay to investigate her fathers disappearance. She has an ulterior motive though as the bay was owned by the Countess and she plans to inherit. They aren’t the only people after the bay though as real estate broker Frank Ventura and his lover, Laura are also scheming to buy the land cheap. Then there is the countess’ son (Renata’s step brother), who has been hidden from the world, living in a shack by the bay. As more murders start to happen the question becomes who is hunting who?

Thirteen Corpses

I can definitely see how this was an influence on the slasher genre. Most specifically thought, Friday the 13th (Part one). There is a whole section that is sort of a footnote to the main story, but is straight out of 80’s slasher movies. It’s almost the template for the first four Friday the 13th films, yet it’s only a 20 minute segment of the movie. It’s like other directors watched this and decide it would be even better if this was the entire movie. There’s even a bit of nudity and pre-marital sex in the mix. The rest of the movie has plenty of elements that I can see influenced future slashers, but this particular section stands out.

Of course being Giallo there is no shortage of gore. What makes this different is the faster pace and sheer number of kills. There are thirteen kills, a deliberate number (The kills were written before the story). Friday the 13th didn’t reach that body count until part IV (Exceeding it if you include Jason’s own death). Some of the kills are pretty graphic too, including a beheading that pushed the gore a little bit into the unbelievable territory. Several of these could be seen as direct influences on similar deaths within the Friday the 13th franchise. Speaking of that number (Thirteen), it’s especially relevant here as the events all kick off on the 13th. The day isn’t specified, but it could well be a Friday.

The Art of the Slasher

Bava is his own cinematographer here, and so he gets the credit for the creative filming. I especially took note of his use taking the camera out-of-focus. Bava does this throughout, sometimes through zooming, but not always. Many times this is used for a transitions. The technique helps to give the film as smooth flow instead of making hard cuts. This makes the film seem both artistic, but also a little like found footage. Another slasher element on display here is the occasional use of the first person. It is used sparingly, but effectively. Bava was forced to finish the film with a minimal budget and so it’s no surprise a lot of what he came up with ended up as standard techniques for low budget slashers.

There’s plenty of jump scares too, usually the kills come out of nowhere. Being the first of it’s kind it’s not a surprise that there aren’t any false jumps (Something that would become a mainstay of future slashers). The main difference between Bay and most slashers is (Spoiler) there are multiple killers. I won’t elaborate too much on that since that would be major spoilers, but this isn’t a folk law killer wiping everyone out. Perhaps the most interesting thing here is that visually this is a step away from what you expect from giallo. Indeed, I’m not sure it can even be classified as such. This truly is a slasher film or at least half way between the two.

Conclusion

There are however, flaws. Most of which involve the plot. The ending is frankly a bit silly and there is at least one murder that doesn’t seem to make much sense logistically. Honestly, I think this has a plot that falls apart the more you think about it. But then, this is a slasher, what did I expect? In regards to the characters, they all seemed to have personalities. Even those doomed to a short life expectancy. I wouldn’t really call it depth, but Bava at least attempts to make them seem human, which is more than I can say for some modern slashers. The acting too is decent and despite being an Italian horror, I didn’t notice any awkward dubbing.

It’s not necessarily by design that this is a proto-slasher, instead, it’s likely a result of production issues. As a slasher, the overly convoluted plots means it lacks focus. But as a giallo it lacks flair. Overall though, while not as visually stunning as Blood and Black lace, this is a groundbreaking movie. It still stands the test of time as a solid and unique slasher film, even by modern standards. It is worthy of a strong 6.5/10. This is a must see for slasher and giallo fans alike. If you aren’t a fan of either sub-genre, then it’s a mild recommendation instead.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Puppet Master (1989)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Tonight’s horror review is “Puppet Master” from 1989. Shockingly I’ve never gotten on board with this particular horror franchise. I’ve seen enough clips to be aware of the individual puppets and the general concept, but never watched a movie. That gives me a lot to catch up on because there are fifteen of them (Including one remake). The third movie “Toulon’s Revenge” is generally considered the best one, but I’m not one to skip ahead. This is of course from Charles Band’s “Full Moon Pictures” production company. The company (In one form or another) that gave us Ghoulies, Head of the Family, Tourist Trap and Bad CGI Gator, to name but a few.

Puppet Master is written and directed by “Tourist Trap” (1979) director David Schmoeller. As is often the case with these films, Charlies brother Richard provides the score. Cinematography is provided by Sergio Salvati who also performed that job for the Lucio Fulci movie “The Beyond” (1981). Paul Le Mat plays the protagonist “Alex”, but it’s an ensemble story really. You won’t know who any of these people are so I’m skipping the list. The story involves a group of psychics that are drawn together by a psychic message from an old acquaintance. An unpleasant man that has been searching for the ancient secret to giving life to the inanimate. When they arrive they find the man has died, but it seems he has plans that go beyond death.

Puppets in the Hands of Fate

This has a more complex set up than I was expecting from this movie. The group of psychics being drawn together by a message from a dead man is a pretty interesting premise in itself. It didn’t really need murderous puppets, nor did the puppets need the psychics. But, this is actually pretty normal Charles Band films of the time. Likely it was done to reduce the amount of time they had to animate the puppets. Ghoulies was very similar, with a story about sorcery that only tangentially related to the monsters. The difference here is story doesn’t get in the way of the carnage. The puppets are directly tied to the purpose of main plot rather then just being there like in Ghoulies.

The effects and animation of the puppets is pretty reasonable. Obviously these days you could do better, but nothing here took me out of it. I’m not convinced the design of Leech Woman and Pinhead (Not the one from Hellraiser) is particularly effective. Leech Woman needs people to basically stay still while she slowly vomits leeches onto them. Pinhead meanwhile just punches and strangles people, but is easily thrown off. Practicality aside, they are all pretty original and creepy looking. The acting is pretty reasonable for a low budget horror too.

Conclusion

While not a horror masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, this was a better film than I was expecting. It’s an entirely reasonable B-Movie. That said, there’s nothing to write home about here either. No stand out scenes or characters. The puppets don’t really get enough screen time individually to call them iconic just yet, though certainly creative. Despite having a more complex than expected set up, the story itself is simple once it gets rolling. So ultimately this is an okay horror, if a little dated. But it’s quick, punchy and original and is the first of a long run of films so I’d say it’s worthwhile if you are a horror fan. Just about a 6/10.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Antlers (2021)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For tonight’s movie we’re heading to recent years and checking out 2021’s “Anters”. This is a horror movie from director Scott Cooper, who has given us a number of high quality movies including the excellent neo-noir “Out of the Furnace” (2013). Other movies of his include “Crazy Heart” (2009), Hostiles (2017) and more recently “The Pale Blue Eye” (2022). Antlers was Coopers first horror movie and his lowest rated on IMdb (At 5.9/10). It also scored an underwhelming 57/100 from critics on Metacritic. The story was adapted from Nick Antosca’s short story “The Quiet Boy” and stars Keri Russell, Jesse Plemons & Jeremy T. Thomas.

“Frank Weaver” (Scott Haze) runs a secret Meth lab out of an inactive mine. He and an accomplice are attacked there by a mysterious creature. Later he becomes semi-feral, constantly hungry for freshly killed meat. This is provided by his son “Lucas” (Thomas). “Julia” (Russel), a teacher at Lucas’ school starts to suspect Lucas is being abused and decides to investigate. When the body of the Meth Lab accomplice is found torn in half, Julia’s brother “Paul” (Plemons), the local Sheriff begins to investigate. When the leads bring both investigations together the pair are left with the possibility that something unnatural may be going on and that poor Lucas may be caught up in the middle of it.

The Grey, The Bland and The Average

If I could sum up Antlers in one word, it would be “Bland”. It’s not that it is particularly bad, it’s just got nothing about it that I found at all interesting. Russell and Plemons give reasonable, performances. Jeremy T. Thomas gives a good performance as disturbed child Lucas. But none of the characters are particularly compelling. There is an obvious theme here of parental abuse, but the film doesn’t really do anything of note with it. The movie is a slow burn with a fairly short running time (99 minutes). By necessity that means there isn’t a whole lot to the plot. So what we have is a fairly straight forward monster movie with a slow, plodding pace.

This is the kind of film that could perhaps be salvaged by the style. This was a Guillermo del Toro produced movie and the kind of movie I could really see shine under his direction. Instead, he hand picked Scott Cooper to direct. A good director, but I’m not sure Cooper is a well suited to horror. Here he is assisted by cinematographer Florian Hoffmeister, again not a bad choice. But what we ended up getting are very bland visuals supporting a slow, yet straightforward story. All the ingredients are here, fog, rain, dark and light. We have some wide shots and overhead shots. But it all just looks dull. Perhaps the issue is it all looks too real instead of horror films preferred ethereal look.

Oh Look, Daddy Issues

The creature itself, when we actually get to see it is pretty well constructed. Once again though, it isn’t really presented in a way that makes me feel anything. It has a pretty low body count and I barely knew any of the victims. Perhaps the area the film is most lacking is in atmosphere. It doesn’t really manage to establish a mood. Yet there were plenty of things here to work with. A child that collects roadkill to take home is pretty creepy, but that’s not really how he is presented. Instead, the movie is sympathetic to him right away, so what we are watching is drama and not horror. There’s also an innate tragedy to what has happened to his family. But neither this nor any history of abuse in the family is really explored.

Perhaps this is a case of the themes not properly resonating with the story. Lucas’ father has a secret meth lab we see in the opening. The next time we see him, he is locking himself in the basement to protect his kids. It doesn’t look like he was previously abusive to them, though obviously not father of the year. After this he slowly becomes monstrous. The suggestion is Paul and Julia’s father became abusive (or more so) due to alcoholism. So there is a clear link here. However, we’re only ever told about this abuse and honestly, it doesn’t really impact that story that much. Julia would likely have been concerned about a potentially abused child in her classroom anyway. A flashback or two could have really helped, especially with the transitions blended with the current story.

Conclusion

This movie has an IMdb rating of 5.9 (At the time of writing). As a big fan of Coopers’ “Out of the Furnace” movie from 2013, my instinct was this was a harsh rating and I would probably score it higher. Sadly, that won’t be the case. While there is no outright failures here, the acting, directing, cinematography, music and editing all all competent. It just doesn’t work. This feels like they went with the first draft of the script that clearly needed more work. I’m not sure Cooper was the right director either. He does dramas and thrillers well, but horror needs a different mentality. His “The Pale Blue Eye” (2022) had similar issues, but managed to work thanks to a more complex story and longer running time.

The best I can give this movie is a 5.5/10 and I was debating with myself between scoring it at a five. The reason being that when I give a 5.5 I normally can recommended it to at least some people. Maybe it’s a franchise movie that is of interest to fans of that franchise. Maybe it’s a fun B-Movie that while objectively bad is enough fun for fans of B-Movies to enjoy. Here though, I’m not sure this will really appeal much to anyone. But it is very competently made and doesn’t have any glaring faults. So a five would be harsh. But a six would be a universal recommendation. So a 5.5/10 it is.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Brides of Dracula (1960)

Posted on by fenrisfil

I was introduced to Hammer’s Dracula around about age ten. So for me Christopher Lee will always be my Dracula. So on the surface it may seem odd that I’ve never seen this sequel to 1958’s “Dracula” (“Horror of Dracula” to my US readers). But when you realize this is a sequel that features neither Christopher Lee nor Dracula you can probably see why I would skip it. A harsh decision to be sure, because it is still directed by the great Terence Fisher and still stars the legendary Peter cushing. Almost any Hammer film worth watching involves one or both of those people. So time to give it a chance. Jimmy Sangster, Peter Bryan and Edward Percy provide the screenplay and Jack Asher the cinematography. Composer Malcolm Williamson provides a score in the classic Hammer style of James Bernard.

Dracula is gone, but his disciples still plague Transylvania. One such vampire, “Baron Meinster” has so far been contained by his mother, the Baroness. He is kept chained in his private quarters at their castle. While his mother wishes to contain this evil, she still feeds it. The Baroness brings young women to the castle, kills them and feed his son their blood. One potential victim, “Marianne”, a school teacher passing through the area instead frees the Baron. This unleashes the evil and makes her the focus of the Baron’s dark desires. Fortunately for her, while feeling the castle she is picked up by a travelling “Doctor Van Helsing” (Cushing), in the area to hunt for just such monsters.

Brides of Meinster

Hammer horrors are formulaic, there’s no denying that. However they usually well made, have a great soundtrack and get elevated by a small number of great actors putting in powerful performances. Christopher Lee, André Morell, Michael Gough and Charles Gray are on that list of actors. But none were more important to Hammer films than Peter Cushing, who appeared in no less than twenty two of their movies. Peter of course stars here. However, there is no Christopher Lee in this “Dracula” movie. Christopher was concerned about being type cast and turned down the role. Obvious he got over it later (Appearing in another six sequels after this).

Instead of recasting Dracula, they stuck with the ending of the previous movie from 1958 and moved on to a new vampire threat. Fine in theory, though it makes the title even more misleading. “Brides of Dracula” in the novel refers to the vampire women that reside with the Count. So the two vampire women in the story could be called “Brides” but not really of “Dracula”. They actually contribute very little to the story too. But the bigger problem is the substitute “Baron Meinster” is a poor imitation. Played by a mediocre David Peel, who retired from acting not long after. His acting is solid though compared to the “Brides”.

Conclusion

While the brides role is minimal so easy to forgive, leading lady Yvonne Monlaur’s acting is inconsistent throughout. At times she’s very good, at times notably poor. Perhaps I am being a bit harsh though because this is all in comparison to Peter Cushing’s naturally flawless performance as Van Helsing. It may also be unfair to compare Meinster to Christopher Lee’s Dracula. I acknowledge that, but it’s impossible not to make that comparison in a Hammer film with “Dracula” in the title. It’s also worth noting Lee wasn’t always great as Dracula, though only because he didn’t want to be there for those later films. At his peak, there was no better Dracula.

More importantly and far less debatable is that there is no better Van Helsing than Peter Cushing. His presence raises this film up by at least one star. The music helps too. This is classic Hammer and while it doesn’t do anything new it works perfectly well. Sadly the story starts far more interestingly than it ends and it’s notable the good part of the story is the bit before Van Helsing turns up. This means the film never really peaks. Terrence Fisher competently directs throughout, but this isn’t his best work. For that, we’d have to wait another eight years for “The Devil Rides Out”. Sadly I can only give this a 5.5/10. Worthwhile for Hammer fans, but otherwise forgettable.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Wyrmwood: Apocalypse (2021)

Posted on by fenrisfil

I watched and reviewed the first Wyrmwood movie for a previous October Challenge. If you read that review, you will know that I liked the film and gave it a recommendation. It was surprisingly innovative and very impressive for the shoestring budget. I found out about the sequel right away, but I held off watching it until this year’s October challenge. So here we are. Like the first film this is written/directed and produced by Kiah Roache-Turner and stars Jay Gallagher, Bianca Bradey and Luke McKenzie. Tristan Roache-Turner assists with the writing. Cinematography is by Tim Nagle and music is by Michael Lira.

The movie picks up an indeterminate amount of time after the first film. Brooke (Bradey) and Barry (Gallagher) are travelling with another sibling pair of Grace (Tasia Zalar) and Maxi (Shantae Barnes Cowan). Grace is a hybrid, like Brooke but without the power to control other zombies. After some kind of incident between them the groups split and Grace is captured by Wasteland loner Rhys (McKenzie) and delivered to a research center where they are supposedly researching a cure. Rhys is beginning to doubt the researchers methods and goals and turns on them, teaming up with Maxi, Brooke and Barry.

Mad Max Vs Zombies

This is a grindhouse style zombie movie. There are a lot of grindhouse zombie films because it’s very easy and cheap to do and the stories largely write themselves. More upmarket zombie films may feature social commentary (All Romero’s movies), great special effects (Like in Return of the Living Dead) or a focus on human survivors (See, every Walking Dead show and spin off). Grindhouse zombie films are much more straightforward. The focus is on having some fun and not thinking too hard about it. As these goes, probably the best you are likely to get is “Planet Terror” (2007), from the double movie feature called “Grindhouse”. But the original Wyrmwood (2014) came pretty close. Introducing a Mad Max aesthetic to the genre and the idea of Zombie fumes fueling those Mad Max vehicles.

Apocalypse, follows on directly from that story and presents more of the same. This is both it’s strength and it’s biggest flaw. Although it does a relatively good job it doesn’t have the originality presented by the first film and it doesn’t move the story forward in any meaningful way. Ultimately there was no reason to do a sequel, at least not a direct sequel. The good aspects, the Mad Max stuff, the zombie fuel and the returning characters are all things we’ve seen before. In many ways this is a very safe sequel. The plot itself is mostly a duplication of the previous movie too. None of it is actually bad though, it’s just unimaginative.

Conclusion

Much like the previous movie, the acting is solid and a lot better than you usually expect for a low budget zombie film. It’s almost the same cast as the previous movie, but the quality in general seems improved. To be clear, no one is winning Oscars here, but it’s above average for grindhouse horror. The soundtrack is pretty solid and the effects work well. The cyborg zombie introduced late on does look pretty cool. The switch of roles for Luke McKenzie is another thing that works well and Rhys’ base camp and lifestyle are the closest this movie comes to an original idea. But it doesn’t last long and the focus mostly returns to re-doing the first film.

Overall, this is an okay zombie sequel. You need to watch the first Wyrmwood movie to understand it as it doesn’t really explain anything. If you have watched that and you did enjoy it, then you probably will enjoy this one. It is less innovative and doesn’t really add much to that story, but is perhaps a bit tighter and more polished production. I do like Kiah Roache-Turner as a writer/director. I’ve seen four of his movies, all were interesting and none were bad. The first “Wyrmwood” and “Nekrotronic” (2018) were actually quite good. This one is weaker, but above average overall and a solid 5.5/10. Recommended, but only if you enjoyed the first film.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Weapons (2025)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Horror is booming. The entire genre has become a licence to print money and shows no sign of slowing down. That’s not to say every film has been a success, but the general rule of low costs and easy returns has made it most profitable. Horror and Anime are the only safe bets these days, with every other genre struggling to break even. Given that, it’s no surprise to see a trend of the odd horror movie getting a huge boost from hype and word of mouth. Last year it was “The Substance” that got the hype, this year it is “Weapons”. This is a movie from writer/director Zach Cregger (Whose previous movie “Barbarian” also landed on the hype wagon). It features an ensemble cast but primarily Josh Brolin and Julia Garner. Larkin Seiple provides cinematography and music is by the collaboration between Cregger and the “Holladay Brothers”.

One night, in the town of Maybrook, Pennsylvania, seventeen children from elementary school teacher “Justine Gandy”‘s (Garner) third-grade class suddenly ran from their homes at 2:17 a.m. and disappeared. Only one student, “Alex Lilly” (Cary Christopher), remained. The story picks up two years later and follows the lives of various characters impacted by this event as they try and move on with their lives and get to the bottom of what happened. Specifically Justine, parent “Archer” (Brolin), Police Officer “Paul” (Alden Ehrenreich), junkie “James” (Austin Abrams) and the surviving child Alex. But to figure it out they must get over their own mistrust of each other first.

Narrative Technique

There are several movies that tell a story from multiple characters perspective. It’s one of a few techniques that allow the writers to hide important information from the viewer while still constructing a compelling narrative. The other main way of doing this is by telling the story out of order (Such as in “Memento” or “Strange Darlings”). The advantage with giving character perspectives is that you can change events based on how a human remembers them, adding in the “Unreliable narrator”. Weapon’s doesn’t really do this. Instead, it’s more like the time jump technique but without a set protagonist. In that regard it’s more comparable to “Strange Darlings” than a film like “Rashomon”.

The technique does had it’s advantages here. Effectively how it works is to give you a little more both at the start and end of the story with each new character. Our final character provides us with both the start and end of the story. There are a few horrors that recontextualize the timeline with it’s conclusion. There’s several that hold off from showing the true beginning of the story until the end. But I can’t think of any that progresses it in quite the same way. So point for originality there. The structure keeps the mystery alive far longer that a straight forward narrative could (Even if it held back the true beginning).

Unravelling The Mystery

The movie gives a very good atmosphere throughout. While I’m avoiding spoilers, so won’t reveal the nature of the evil in this story, I will say that I approve. It’s rare that this particular horror archetype is actually scary. A bit like vampires being made into sexy/romantic characters, this archetype is usually portrayed as heroic, misunderstood, sexy or an allegory for… Well that would give it away. So I appreciate that. Perhaps not as much as I appreciated Nosferatu and Last Voyage of the Demeter making Vampires scary again, but I do approve. This is a fairly long horror and the pacing is steady. Definite slow burn, but not one that will have you checking your watch.

Where I have some issues with the story is that it requires a seriously incompetent police investigation to work. Really almost anyone in that town not doing even the vaguest bit of investigation would have figured it out. Of course that is basically what did happen, but only after two entire years of it not crossing anyone’s mind to plot likely paths of the children for intersections. The evil plan was ultimately never going to work We’re also seeing a power level that is so off the charts that it draws into question the need for such a crazy plan. There’s a lot here that falls apart if you think about it too much.

Conclusion

Overall, this is a very impressive horror movie. If you remember my “Wolf Man” (2025) review earlier in the year you may remember that Julia Garner was the lead of that movie as well. So she gets the “Skarsgård” award for being in both the strongest and weakest horror film of the year. If you don’t get the reference, Bill Skarsgård was in both the abysmal “Crow” remake last year and the magnificent “Nosferatu”. So this is becoming a bit of a redemption arc trend. Anyway, Garner wasn’t the problem with “Wolf Man” and she’s actually very good here. The whole cast is pretty solid to be fair.

Ultimately this is a film that gives a great first experience in watching. It has definite flaws (Such as incompetent police and FBI investigations) and I am not sure it will maintain my appreciation through too many re-watches. But it’s one of the most original horror films I’ve seen for years and is well deserving of a strong 7/10. Highly recommended.

Rating: 7 out of 10.