Author: fenrisfil

The Prowler (1981)

Posted on by fenrisfil

1981 was the year the slasher film firmly established itself as a horror genre. Friday the 13th part II introduced us to an adult Jason Voorheese. We also had “The Burning” and “My Bloody Valentine” and tonight’s horror movie “The Prowler”. While The Burning aimed for the Friday the 13th style holiday camp bloodbath, The Prowler followed in the wake of “Prom Night” (1980) by targeting a small town graduation dance. The movie is directed by Joseph Zito, who would go on to direct Friday the 13th Part IV (The one where Jason actually gets killed). Neal Barbera and Glenn Leopold write, João Fernandes provides cinematography, Richard Einhorn provides the music and Tom Savini does the effects.

In 1945 the town of Avalon is shaken by the brutal murder of a pair of lovers at a graduation dance. The victims are impaled with a pitch fork and decorated with a single rose. In the aftermath it is decided to no longer hold graduation dances. This lasts for 35 years until the community is finally convinced to let the dance happen. Unfortunately for the celebrating school leavers, someone is not happy about this turn of events. While embarking on a killing spree following the original killers M.O. one of his potential victims manages to escape and sound the alarm bell. The police deputy, who is left in command after the Sheriff goes on a fishing trip must track down and stop this Prowler before he takes another victim.

Some People Take Rejection Badly

This is a fairly early slasher film (At least if you ignore proto-slashers like “Bay of Blood“). Because of this, it’s hard to appreciate the impact this film would have had on release. A lot of the slasher tropes in this film were still relatively fresh. The effects for the kills would have been especially impressive. Thanks to the great work of Tom Savini, those effects actually hold up pretty well by modern standards too. The movie has a moderately low kill count. Six stalked kills by the psycho (All coming in pairs), with the first pair being decades earlier. This is followed by two more during the struggle at the end, both shot. These are fairly evenly spaced out maintaining the pace and tension.

The plot though is a little weak and somewhat muddled. There’s never any explanation given for why the killer is the killer. It’s implied his first kills are because he was jilted while fighting in WW2. This new spree though seems to be simply from a hatred of proms. This is a remarkable level of hatred towards the idea of young lovers. Even 35 years after his heart was broken and despite having apparently had a fairly normal life, he is still so enraged by the graduation ball that he wants to slaughter a load of random kids. It’s a hard one to buy. He deliberately avoids killing his work colleague though, so he’s not purely psychotic. It’s definitely odd.

What The Fork?

There’s a lot of unanswered questions that come with his movie. The most obvious one is why a pitchfork? The only answer I can think of is simple because they thought it was a cool. That and it would help the killer stand out. He uses a bayonette just as often and that one makes more sense given the WW2 soldier gimmick. On top of this there is a lot of oddness that seems to me to be attempts to throw red herrings our way about the identity of the killer. But these are all very ineffective and just end up throwing random things into the story. For example the whole Major Chatham red herring.

Had he turned near the end in place of the random character that does, it would have tied this up nicely. Instead we get a whole scene with a Major Chatham watching two of the lovers from the prom get it on in a basement. I can’t help but the film’s makers were really certain the viewers would think Chatham was the killer. Even despite being very old and frail and obviously not his own daughters jilted lover. His entire role in the film ends up just being that of a peeping tom. Apparently that’s more important to him than finding out who killed his daughter. It’s even stranger when you remember that it was meant to be Chatham that stopped the school having a prom for so many years. Seems like he enjoys it plenty.

Conclusion

One final bit of weirdness with the film is at the end. After a rescue moment with the final girl (Trying to avoid spoilers here). The girl and her somewhat random rescuer spend a lot of time staring at each other while dramatic music plays. The scene is awkward to watch. Perhaps this is the effect of having seen so many slasher movies. Obviously I knew the killer wasn’t finished off yet. The pair silently stare at each other for what feels like forever, while the girl makes a variety of facial expressions and then… well, you can probably guess. It’s a slasher film after all. This was just a bad scene and a shame because the final act had been pretty solid until then.

So overall, I did quite like this slasher. Tom Savini needs a star on the Hollywood walk of fame. He’s raises the level of any horror film he does the effects for and this is no exception. The plot though is all over the place, but the pacing is at least good. The film only started to drag once (When the Deputy is trying to get a lazy motel worker to contact the vacationing Sheriff). The killer is still pretty original, even 44 years later even we still don’t know why he used a pitch fork. Overall, this is a solid 6/10. Not a universal recommendation though. Instead it’s a strong recommendation for slasher fans and a “Don’t go out of your way for it” for everyone else.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

The Bird With The Crystal Plumage (1970)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For tonight’s movies I’m heading back to the world of giallo and an early film from horror legend Dario Argento. This is “The Bird With The Crystal Plumage” from 1970. The film usually credited with both launching Argento’s career and popularizing the giallo sub-genre internationally. Really, I should have watched this years ago, but I’m making amends now. The movie is written and directed by Argento with Vittorio Storaro providing cinematography. The legendary Enzio Morricone provides the soundtrack. American method actor Tony Musante stars.

“Sam Dalmas” (Muscante), is an American writer, vacationing in Rome while trying to get over a case of writers block. While walking home one evening Sam witnesses a violent attack at an art gallery. The victim survives thanks to his interference and Sam is questioned by the police where he learns that this may be a serial killer. Sam is haunted by what he saw that night and is sure he has missed something important about the would be killer. He begins to investigate the killings himself, something that draws the attention and wrath of the killer. Now he and his girlfriend “Julia” (Suzy Kendall) are in mortal danger. Sam can’t help but think this is a sign he is getting close to an answer.

Yellow With Spots of Red

This is very much a giallo film. It’s more murder mystery than horror, but when violence is required it doesn’t hold back. It’s a very compelling murder mystery too. I have to say, I didn’t guess the killer either. The red herrings were well placed and while I didn’t fall for all of them, they did enough to throw me off the scent. But it’s also not the kind of film ruined by knowing, so it hasn’t lost re-watch value either. There are perhaps a few holes in the story, but they don’t ruin anything. I would say some characters are a little too easy about friends of theirs dying and the police a bit too quick to let an American writer do their investigating for them, but other than that it is solid.

Despite being an early Argento film, his flair for visuals is evident here. It is perhaps a little less polished than it would become, but if anything that makes it more effective here. There’s a lot of closeups of limbs, eyes through holes and some great set ups for having the killer charge towards their victim. The killer’s style of black raincoat, gloves, hat and mask, mirror Mario Bava’s “Blood and Black Lace”. Argento would re-use this in several of his later giallo movies too, cementing the look as the “Giallo killer”.

The Art of Horror

Later Dario Argento films tended to feature great soundtracks from “Goblin”, which gave them a unique feel. This movie is before he began collaborating with that Italian progressive rock band. Instead, in his early career Argento regularly collaborated with one of the masters of the movie soundtrack, Enzio Morricone himself. Unsurprisingly, this is a top tier soundtrack and it really adds to what you see on screen. In some ways it’s superior to Goblin’s work since sometimes with that band, the music would feel more important than what was on screen. Similar to when Tangerine Dream did soundtracks in the US. Morricone’s soundtrack fits perfectly.

The presentation of the film is stylish but energetic and visceral. It doesn’t really build slow tension or rely on jump scares. Instead, it is somewhere in between the two. When the action kicks off you get very little warning, but you do see it coming. It’s just enough to brace yourself and get you to the edge of your seat. The kills aren’t dwelled on either. You see just enough for it to have shock value and no more. Everything in this movie is quite measured, which is no surprise coming from a very technical director as Argento.

Conclusion

The movie isn’t without flaws, but they are few and far between. My biggest issue, I can’t list without giving a major spoiler for the ending. Suffice to say it’s down to the logistics of the final twist. But that’s really my only issue. The film looks good and sounds good. It’s not quite the visual spectacle of “Blood and Black Lace” or some of Argento’s later films (For example, “Opera” which I reviewed a few years ago). It does however have an interesting and well put together plot (Better than Opera in that regard). Plus of course a Morricone soundtrack. Overall this is a clear 7/10. Definitely a recommendation and if you want to understand what “Giallo” is as a genre, this is the movie to watch.

Rating: 7 out of 10.

The Curse of the Werewolf (1961)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For tonight’s movie, I’m hitting the Werewolf sub-genre again and finally checking out Hammer Horror’s take on the beast from 1961. This is from legendary director Terence Fisher and stars legendary actor Oliver Reed (In his first lead role). It also features a 12 tone serials score from Benjamin Frankel. That is, the score avoids being in any key by ensuring that every note in the chromatic scale is played the same amount. Arthur Grant provides cinematography and Anthony Hinds (Credited as John Elder) wrote the screenplay.

In 18th-century Spain a beggar is imprisoned by a cruel marques and left for years forgotten in his dungeon. For years he is seen only by a mute serving girl that sends him his food. Over time he becomes a feral beast in that dungeon. After the serving girl is put into the same cell for refusing the marques advances, she is raped by the feral beggar. Begging for a freedom she is taken to the marques, but kills him and flees. Later she is found by a kindly gentleman-scholar, who lives alone with his housekeeper. They tend to her but she dies giving birth to the child of the feral beggar. The scholar raises the boy as his own, but it becomes apparent he is cursed.

Origin of the Curse

This really is a film of two halves. Specifically, Oliver Reed is only in the second half. The first half tells of his origin story, explaining why he was born with the curse. This section of the movie drags somewhat and involves a number of characters that are long gone by the time you get to Reed’s section. It’s not that this section is actually bad, it just feels like part of a different story. A lot of the story is setting up the “Marqués Siniestro” as an over the top evil villain. However, he’s dead before Oliver Reed turns up, so feels wasted. He is there to explain how a beggar ended up abandoned in the prison until driven into a feral form. Really, wasn’t neccisary.

The beggar in the dungeon is given it’s prologue, showing why the Beggar is in the dungeon. It’s not much of a reason either and amounts to the Marqués being a dick. But this too is given a prologue explaining why the beggar has turned up to this feast to end up in the dungeon. Then this entire section exists as a prologue to showing the child version of Reed’s character and revealing that he has the curse. It’s a very long winded origin story. Which would be fine if there was a lot to the main story, but by this point we’ve only got 45 minutes left. So the second half ends up feeling rushed.

Classic Werewolf Tragedy

Despite having three very distinct and isolated acts, these are individually very well put together. The acting is all good and the individual stories are relatively compelling. The downside is they are all too short. It’s the screenplay that is the problem here, this was Hinds first full screenplay and he simply put too much in it. It’s actually the middle act where this drags, because at this stage I realized the entire first act was not going to impact the rest of the film and I just wanted them to hurry up and get to an adult Leon. What I will say though is the child they had play Leon as a child really does look like Oliver Reed. He wasn’t a great actor, so I’m guessing they cast him on looks.

When we finally get to Reed’s section, it’s actually very good. Rushed, but good. Leon is quickly thrown into a relationship with the unobtainable daughter of his new employer. But as fast as it happens, it’s not fast enough to avoid the curse. Having killed an innocent girl, Leon wants to die and goes as far as to ask to be burned to death. Eventually when he changes, escapes and is hunted down it becomes a classic werewolf tragedy. We’ve seen it in the original “Wolf Man” movie, and we’ve seen it done best in “American Werewolf in London”. This is werewolf movie bread and butter. Reed plays a great tragic character. He is doomed from the start and ultimately only wanting to protect others from the beast within.

Conclusion

This is a well directed movie, with great sets, great and original music and quality acting. Unfortunately the plot is hampered by spending so much time in the set up and doing no more than the standard Wolfman thing for it’s final act. It features a great villain and a tragic hero that never actually have anything to do with each other. It’s actually the kind of movie that could work better these days, where they’d just extend it by another 40 minutes, allowing for a lot more meat to the main section. But Hammer Horror movies tended to be around the 90 minute mark and so that wasn’t to be. This is still a solid 6/10 however. Not a must see, but recommended as a solid werewolf movie.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Bride of Chucky (1998)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Bride of Chucky is the sequel to “Child’s Play 3” and fourth installment of the Child’s Play franchise. It also the last Chucky movie not to be directed by it’s creator Don Mancini. As much credit as he deserves for the series, it’s notable it went downhill after he took the directing chair. While Mancini writes this installment it is directed by Ronny Yu (Who would go on to direct Jason Vs Freddy). Graeme Revell provides the music and Peter Pau provides cinematography. Brad Dourif naturally returns as the voice of “Chucky”. He is joined by Jennifer Tilly, Katherine Heigl and Nick Stabile.

Years after the events of the previous movie, Chucky’s remains are stored in a high security evidence lock up. Chucky’s girlfriend “Tiffany” (Tilly) from his human life orchestrates breaking the lifeless doll out and re-animating him. She is psychotic but also a romantic and dreams of getting married to Chucky. When the doll rejects her, the two fall out leading to Tiffany’s death and resurrection in another doll. The pair then trick an eloping couple to take the dolls to the cemetery where Chucky’s human body is buried so that he can retrieve his amulet and use it to posses a human form.

Tonal Shift

This a notable shift for the franchise, moving into far more comedic territory and switching away from focusing on Andy Barclay (Protagonist of the first three movies) This was just in time too as the third film was starting to wear the basic concept a bit thin. The film needed a fresh approach and they found that with Bride of Chucky. The first thing I noted with the film is the meta references, which stands out more in retrospect than it would have done in the late 90’s. Thanks to the impact of “Scream” (1996) most late 90’s horror took a very meta, self aware approach. Mostly I wasn’t a fan, but here in a horror comedy it works well.

Right at the start of the film as we’re shown the high security evidence lock up where Chucky’s remains are stored, we get to see a number of other items. Specifically a hock mask, a white mask of a face, a chainsaw and a strange glove with knives on the fingers. If you don’t get those references you are probably not a horror fan. We also get a reference to Pinhead from Hellraiser a bit further in and jokes indirectly about the Child’s Play series itself. This probably wouldn’t work without the comedic shift, but I enjoyed each one. The story didn’t have to go out of it’s way for the references and they were just a bit of fun.

And Then There Were Two

More importantly though is the dynamic between Chucky and Tiffany. Chucky is as abusive as you would expect, while Tiffany is a romantic… To be fair, a romantic serial killer, but still romantic. They only really bond over their love of murder and death, but they bond hard over it. Apparently the good guy dolls are anatomically correct… Yeah, that’s sort of disturbing in it’s own way. The second couple in the story, the eloping Jade and Jesse have their own tension. Mostly stemming from suspecting each other as serial killers. The whole thing is sort of a macabre double date/road movie. It works surprisingly well.

Visually the movie is pretty cool. I think that’s the best way to describe it. It’s not gory or scary, but the visuals are pretty original and unique to what you can do with killer dolls. The look of the rebuilt Chucky Doll is great and there are some creative kills and a variety of looks to Tiffany. It all works rather well. The soundtrack mixes in some great rock/metal of the period (Including a great version of “Crazy” courtesy of the band “Kidneytheives”), with a number of throwbacks to past Child’s play movies. Sadly this is the end of Chucky’s classic run, with creator Mancini taking full control and injecting a bit too much identity politics into it.

Conclusion

This is a different kind of film to past Child’s Play movies and as such it may not be what a lot of people expected from the franchise. That said, it’s not like they tried to make Chucky a hero or anything. He’s as irredeemably evil as ever. Many long running franchises have moments like this, where they recognize their own ridiculousness and lighten the tone a little. Nightmare on Elm Street part 3 and Friday the 13th part 6 come to mind. For me, the added humor was exactly what the franchises needed to stay fresh and this is easily the best Chucky movie since the original. This narrowly hits a 6.5/10 purely for how much fun it is. If you like horror comedy, you’ll like this.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Street Trash (1987)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Tonight’s movie is the independent horror comedy “Street Trash” from 1987. Made on a budget of $100,000 ($274k in today’s money), making it at the cheaper end of the horror scale. Horror comedies are pretty easy to do at this price range since you can get away with goofy effects and bad acting providing the film is actually fun to watch. This one has been on my radar for a long time. The movie is directed by J. Michael Muro, a professional that mostly works as a camera operated. In that capacity he’s actually a James Cameron regular and has worked on films like “Terminator 2” and “Titanic”. This is the only movie he ever directed. The film is written and produced by Roy Frumkes. David Sperling provides cinematography and Rick Ulfik the soundtrack.

A liquor store own frequented by street bums finds a box of “Tenafly Viper” in his basement. Seeing it as trash, he decides to sell it at $1 a bottle to the local tramps. Unfortuantely for them, it kills anyone instantly that drinks it. Meanwhile, the bums have their own problems. They are unwelcome residents of the junkyard they inhabit. They are lorded over by a crazed Vietnam vet with a tendency towards psychotic outbursts. After a passing commuter is murdered and a few of the Viper killed corpses turn up, the cops also get involved and last but not least a local gangster has a grudge against the group after they gang rape and murder his girlfriend.

Brothers, Bums and Booze

One of the first things I noticed about the movie is how almost none of the plot actually revolves around the “Viper” booze, which from the trailer you’d think is the main story. This isn’t the story of the deadly booze, it’s just sort of there and not much of the story relates to it. But then that’s the kind of story this is. This is really just a story about a bunch of crazy hobos, being crazy hobos. The conclusion to the story is basically two hobo brothers dealing with the psycho boss hobo. The brothers are the closest thing to protagonists this film has, but it’s an ensemble cast really

Because of the chaotic plot and the ensemble cast none of the characters really have any kind of charm or appeal to them. But then they are all hobo’s so they probably aren’t meant to. To be fair, I wasn’t expecting character depth here. Another thing I wasn’t expecting was James Lorinz to turn up in a random small role and steal the show. You’d be forgiven for going “Who?” to that, and I would too had I not recently watched “Frankenhooker“, where he stars. This was his first movie role and it likely got him that job. Another cameo highlight is Tony Darrow also in a minor role, as a mobster (Naturally).

Conclusion

While these cameos are good, there’s also some pretty poor acting from other characters. Nothing that wrecked my enjoyment. Even though this isn’t a Troma Studios film, it is at that level. The humor, the gore, the sex, the acting are all what you’d expect from that studio. Basically it’s trash, but trash you can have fun with. Speaking of the gore, style of gore here is apparently known as a “Melt movie” and that is certainly an apt description. But it’s not just hobo’s melting, there’s also a severed penis being thrown around at one point too, because why not I guess.

This is a chaotic and ridiculous film. The plot feels like it was written by a hand grenade. The acting quality is all over the place and the special effects are deliberately silly. The music is actually quite good, in a cheesy 80’s sense. The cinematography is actually pretty solid but then Muro is primarily a cameraman and cinematographer so that makes sense. Basically, the title is accurate, this is tras. But it’s the kind of trash you can have fun with. Especially if you are drinking, though I’d avoid the Tenafly Viper. 5/10

Rating: 5 out of 10.

Oddity (2024)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Oddity is an independent Irish horror written and directed by Damian McCarthy. Not quite sure how this one came to my attention but the last independent Irish horror I reviewed was the excellent “A Dark Song”, so that probably got me looking at other Irish horrors and this one came up. The film stars Carolyn Bracken (In two roles, though one is brief). She is supported by Gwilym Lee, Caroline Menton and Steve Wall. Colm Hogan provides cinematography and Richard G. Mitchell provides the soundtrack.

“Dani” (Bracken) is murdered at her house late one night while her psychiatrist husband “Ted” (Lee) is at work. A year later and the psychiatric patient that is suspected of the murder is himself brutally slain Tom gives the man’s glass eye to “Darcy”, Dani’s blind sister (Also Bracken), a clairvoyant that is able to learn about that person from their items. She then travels to her sisters house to uncover the truth, bringing with her a large box containing a mysterious wooden statue of a man. Tom has to go to work, but his new girlfriend “Yana” is left at the house. But she is uncomfortable, not just by the company but also the house itself. She keeps seeing visions of Dani. As events unfold, the truth will be revealed.

Two Player Mafia

This is a film with few sets and few actors, but this leads to a major issue as it’s pretty obvious there is no real mystery over what happened to Dani. It’s a bit like trying to play the card game “Mafia” with two players. You know the guilty party at the start. The explanation for motivation feels a little weak at first. The reveal of just the kind of person Ted is helps with that, but also opens a number of potential plot holes. The main issue is the big divide between Ted’s life and his wife’s. They have been married for a number of years. Despite his sister-in-law being a clairvoyant and despite this being something that runs in their family, Ted casually dismisses all the occult. Even when faced with things that have no realistic explanation.

Meanwhile, Ted is a sociopath that has been abusing patients (And occasionally hiring psychotic ones as orderlies) for years. Yet neither his wife nor her clairvoyant sister ever suspected a thing. So while most of the reveals were predictable from the start, the few surprises just damage the films verisimilitude. Now to be fair, I’m sure the film makers knew it would be predictable. I mean, after the initial set up there are only four characters left in the film. One of which is only introduced late on and only after we are told of his involvement. The only question I had was if the girlfriend was involved or not. Whichever way that landed, wouldn’t really add to the mystery.

Conclusion

Fortunately though, Oddity has a solid atmosphere to it. Really, very little happens, but the movie makes the most of the dark foreboding ambiance. A lot of this is probably down to budget restraints, but horror has always worked well in those situations. There’s not much else to it however. Despite being the protagonist Darcy doesn’t really do much. Most of the actual acting here is from Caroline Menton in her role as Ted’s girlfriend Yana. Sadly, she gets a barely passing grade in that regard. Not terrible, but unconvincing. After Yana departs, everyone is basically taking the role of antagonist, including Darcy. It becomes a “Who can be more menacing” competition.

One last positive thing I can say about the movie is the Golem did look creepy. I can tell they spent some time on the design. Which in some ways is a waste because it too doesn’t do much in this film. This is a bit of a theme really. There is no much to this movie outside of atmosphere. The plot doesn’t drag you in or make you think and none of the characters are really compelling or relatable. On Atmosphere alone it could score well, but overall I think the best I can give the film is a 5.5/10. If you like slow burn, atmospheric horror you may enjoy it. On the other hand if you do like that and haven’t seen “A Dark Song” (2016), watch that instead.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Fright Night Part II (1988)

Posted on by fenrisfil

The original “Fright Night” was a 1985 vampire movie and generally regarded as a classic of the sub-genre. Not the biggest vampire film of the 80’s, but it was well liked and relatively successful. A sequel was inevitable. Due to other commitments original director Tom Holland was not able to return and so Tommy Lee Wallace stepped in. Tommy became a go-to guy for horror sequels, directing “Halloween 3”, writing “Amityville 2” and later going on to direct the sequel to John Carpenter’s “Vampires”. His biggest success though would be the original “IT”, filmed as a TV mini-series and staring Tim Curry as “Pennywise”. Roddy McDowall and William Ragsdale reprise their roles as Peter Vincent and Charley Brewster.

Three years after the events of the first film, Charley is recovering in a mental health facility. He has come to believe and accept that there were no vampires. He now believes what he experienced was a combination of group hypnosis and trauma. Vincent meanwhile has returned to hosting his show, but is wary of the Vampire threat. As Charley attempts to return to a normal life, with his new girlfriend “Alex” (Traci Lind), he is unsettled by the arrival of a new group of people to town. Especially one strangely alluring female Regine (Julie Carmen). Old suspicions return and it appears once again he and Vincent must face off against a vampire menace. This time though, it’s personal.

The Vampire Bites Back

As sequel ideas go, this is pretty reasonable. We have a direct link to the first film, a switch in the antagonist to being female. Due to this change we also see Charley as a victim of vampire seduction. The film tries to play up the sexiness of this, but doesn’t really nail that part. The film also tackles the implications of the events of the first film. Ultimately though, the way it tackles this is designed to give you as much of a reset button as possible. So the movie ends up largely a rehash of the original film. There’s just about enough original here to get away with it as a sequel, but it won’t stand on it’s own.

The movie does feature a great synthesizer based score, courtesy of Brad Fiedel (Most famous for “The Terminator”). It also features decent cinematography and effects. It’s worth noting this movie had a substantially lower budget than the original so keeping the monster effects above the bar of “reasonable” was going to be a challenge. They mostly succeed, aided somewhat by this being a horror comedy. Speaking of that though, the comedy aspects are erratic. Like the movie isn’t always sure if it is a horror comedy or not. One specific vampire seems to be the main comedy relief, but he doesn’t really feature enough to make that work.

Conclusion

This is a pretty average sequel. The cast and acting are reasonable. Ragsdale and McDowall slip back into their roles with ease, but I wouldn’t call either outstanding. The cinematography is reasonable, the music is fairly good. There’s nothing terrible here, but it is largely a lesser rehash of the first film but with a female antagonist. This does make a difference and it’s just about enough to justify it’s existence. The plot is straight forward, but ticks all the boxes it set out to. The horror effects are solid, especially for a horror comedy. The comedy side is a little lacking and too reliant on one character in a film that seems to have too many characters anyway.

A third movie was originally planned for this series. Those plans were scrapped after the murder of Live Entertainment chairman Jose Menendez by his own sons. That tragedy also resulted in this movie facing minimal distribution, resulting in box office failure. While only an average movie it deserved better. This fell about where my expectations for a sequel would land. Were this a stand alone movie I’d probably give it a 5.5/10, but as a sequel I can just about justify a 6/10. Recommended, if you’ve seen the original. If you haven’t, then I recommend the original instead (It’s notably better).

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Howl (2015)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Britain has strong ties with Werewolf movies. The movie that established the rules of on screen lycanthropy was “Werewolf of London” (1935). The movie often regarded as the best Werewolf movie of all time is “American Werewolf in London” (1981), set in London and a co-production. If I was to list a top five Werewolf movies I’d definitely include American Werewolf, but I’d also likely add “Dog Soldiers” (2002) and “In The Company of Wolves” (1984). It’s safe to say we can make a decent Werewolf movie in the UK. So naturally I wanted to give “Howl” a chance. The movie is directed by Paul Hyett and written by Mark Huckerby and Nick Ostler. Cinematography is by Adam Biddle and Music is by Paul E. Francis. The movie cost a mere $1.9m to make.

The movie follows “Joe Griffin” (Ed Speleers), a train guard on a double shift working an overnight passenger train from London Waterloo to “Eastborough” (A fictional destination). “Joe” has a romantic interest in another member of the crew, “Ellen” (Holly Weston), who runs the tea trolley. A little way from their destination when passing through some dense forest the train hits a deer and the driver (Sean Pertwee) makes an emergency stop to assess the situation. However he is attacked by some kind of creature and killed. Hearing the driver is missing and rail company can’t send help out for four hours the passengers decide to walk to the next station, but they too are attacked. Trapped back in the train carriage the mismatched group of strangers must try and survive the night.

Dog Veteran

So first thing to note here is the disappointment at Sean Pertwee’s painfully brief cameo. Sean of course was one of the main actors in 2002’s Dog Soldiers, so it’s not his first time being eaten by a Werewolf. An underrated actor and one who is well known by fans of the genre, so it feels a real waste to have him as the first person killed. His screen time was two and a half minutes. Still, the budget for this movie is so low they probably couldn’t afford to have him star. It’s worth noting Dog Soldiers cost $2.3m and came out 13 years earlier, so this is on an even tighter budget. Fortunately the rest of the cast are fairly solid (Being the usual mix of TV actors you tend to get at this budget point).

The Werewolves in this movie are somewhat unique. More human that usual. Not even going the “Wolfman” approach, but instead remaining mostly human outside of the legs and face. Interesting to note here, the effects are a hybrid between practical and CGI. It’s not layered though, it’s half and half. The legs are CGI and the facial changes are practical effects. The result actually worked quite well in the movie. Personally though, I prefer my werewolves to look more wolf like (In the traditional hybrid style). But this variation did fit the film, so that is fine. As original takes on the design go, it’s actually one of the better ones. Certainly better than that last “Wolfman” movie.

Conclusion

This is a simple concept with a straight forward execution. That can be fine, but it puts more weight on the other elements to deliver. There is a vague attempt at putting some social commentary into it, but it’s a bit clumsy. The commentary relies entirely on the background of the passengers and them basically telling you who they are. Often the film seems to be flailing around desperately trying to say something but not quite sure what it is. Outside of that, the characters are reasonable and have a bit of variety. That said, I occasionally mixed up “Ed Speleers” Joe with Sam Gittin’s “Billy”. The action/violence when it happens is done pretty well, especially considering the budget.

This is a pretty basic Werewolf movie, with an interesting design and well made for the restrictions of the production budget. It doesn’t really do much to stand out, outside of that unique werewolf design and that may be a negative for some people anyway. This is a firm 5.5/10. If you are a fan of the sub-genre then it’s probably worth the watch, but it’s not likely to make anyone’s top ten.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Cure (1997)

Posted on by fenrisfil

One of my favourite horrors from these October Challenges was “Pulse” (2001). A smart and emotionally deep ghost story that stuck with me a long time after I watched it. When I see a film like that I always check out the director and look for other movies. In this case the director was Kiyoshi Kurosawa and his most famous horror was actually a film called “Cure” from 1997. It’s described as a Neo-Noir horror so I was sold on it right away. Cure is written and directed by Kurosawa, with Tokushô Kikumura providing cinematography and Gary Ashiya providing the score. The movie stars Kōji Yakusho, with support from Masato Hagiwara, Tsuyoshi Ujiki, Anna Nakagawa, Yoriko Dōguchi and Yukijirō Hotaru.

“Kenichi Takabe” (Yakusho), is a Tokyo Metropolitan Police detective tasked with the investigation of a bizarre series of violent killings by seemingly random perpetrators. All of which seem to have no motivation for the killings and Takabe begins to suspect hypnotism my be involved. He discovers each person had a meeting with a mysterious man with no memory called “Mamiya” (Masato Hagiwara). After taking him into custody he tries to get to the bottom of who this man is; how he does what he does and; why he does it. But as Mamiya takes a special interest in Takabe things become more complicated.

Of Human Nature

This is a slow burn psychological horror with neo-noir leanings. Indeed it is so slow burn and psychological that sometimes I forgot it was a horror. But that’s not a bad thing, because it works. The story isn’t complex, but is very introspective and philosophical. The question Mamiya keeps asking people is “Who are you?”, but he is not asking for names. That is the core of this story. When investigating hypnotism, Takabe is reminded that you cannot hypnotize people to do things that are outside of their nature. So these murders are not entirely outside of what the murderers are capable of, they just never did it before. It is a dark look into what ordinary people may be capable of with the right mental justification. Something I worry about more and more these days.

The horror here is very much psychological and implied. We see a few killings, but not a lot in the way of gore. Indeed there’s no focus on the victims here or their terror as they are stalked or attacked. Most of them are taken by surprise and none of them are notable characters. This is focused on the killers and human nature as a whole. Mamiya is an interesting antagonist, manipulative and yet apparently helpless at the same time. Takabe is a good antagonist too. Flawed, but driven. He struggles with having to look after his wife (Who suffers from schizophrenia) and having such a mentally taxing day job doesn’t help. The conclusion of the story is quite unsettling and yet also somewhat open ended.

Conclusion

Visually this film matches the tone of the story perfectly. The cinematography here favors long shots, visual isolation and heavy use of space, which gives the film style somewhat reminiscent of a Edward Hopper painting. There is a certain detachment to it. The characters are detached from each other, the killers especially so of their victims and the viewer from the brutality of the killings. By contrast Mamiya is the opposite, he has a natural empathy but uses it to convince people to kill. It shows that empathy too can be a double edged sword.

In some ways the movie was a bit predictable, but I’m not sure that matters. This is something true of neo-noir’s and film noir in general, since knowing where things will go is sometimes where the suspense comes from (See Hitchcock’s bomb analogy). Noir is fatalistic and this movie follows that tradition. This is an unsettling movie that sticks with you. Ultimately not as much as Kurosawa’s “Pulse” did. For me though I think that is because that movie personally resonated with me. Objectively speaking I’d say this is on par and deserves the same score. A strong 7/10.

Rating: 7 out of 10.

Good Boy (2025)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Tonight I’m looking at another movie this year that has generated a lot of hype. That is “Good Boy”, a horror film entirely from the perspective of a pet dog. This was made as a side passion project by director Ben Leonberg. He used his own dog, Indy (Which is also his name in the story, for obvious reasons). Leonberg is his own cinematographer and wrote the story with assistance from Alex Cannon. The score is provided by Sam Boase-Miller. Indy the dog stars, but Shane Jensen is his primary support and the main human character.

Indy’s owner “Todd” (Jensen) has just moved into a rural house which he inherited off his grandfather. Todd is unwell, but is hoping some fresh air and relaxation will help. Indy however is unsettled. There is something else going on here and he worries that some dark forces may be trying to take Todd away from him. His nights are interrupted by a series of bad dreams, and he keeps catching glimpses of… something. Todd is getting worse and becoming irritable, but Indy loves him and will do anything to protect him.

Man’s Best Friend

This isn’t the first horror from the dog’s perspective, or at least where the dog is the protagonist. Bad Moon from 1996 was based on the novel “Thor”, which was written from the dogs perspective. That film, didn’t go all in on it, but Thor (The dog) is the one the story follows most of the time and the hero of the story. Good boy however, does go all in. Not first person (or dog) perspective, but the film shows as little of the humans as possible. Not just in their involvement, but also how they are filmed. Faces are covered, angles are from behind or below. Lighting is also used to diminish their visibility. Of course the human cast is mostly one person, Indy’s owner.

Showing the dog’s owner was essential to the story of course. This is really about the relationship between a dog and his owner. Deeper than that, this is about the well known extent of a dogs loyalty. It’s not a theme that has been turned into a horror film before, so this is original in more than one way. There are plenty of hints to the direction of the film as it goes on, which is deliberate. Being from the dogs perspective, there’s no easy way to provide context to the viewer. That means every bit of information you get has to be very deliberately put in front of you. Fortunately, the obviousness of it doesn’t do any harm to the story. It may even help.

Making it Work

With the focus on a real animal (Not CGI), the key to making this film was in the directors ability to control his dog. This probably couldn’t have worked had it not been his dog specifically. I doubt even a trained dog wouldn’t be able to pull off all of the expressions and actions on display here. I’m fairly sure there was a stunt double or two, but the acting part is entirely down to that relationship. An owner knows there dog, knows all the funny faces they make and that is why this works. This will be a hard feat to replicate. But also the story being told here is a very dog specific story. This is truly a one off.

The atmosphere in the film is strong but does get repetitive. This is why even at the short length of 72 minutes, the film gets very close to overstaying its welcome. There’s only so many ways to build tension when you are committed to a dogs perspective. The soundtrack does a lot of the heavy lifting, but that is itself pretty much just a series of noises. It’s a very modern soundtrack, lacking in anything you could really call music. Discordant strings, banging, piercing drones. It’s fine, but for an entire movie it can become tiresome. But the real story is so minimal, the atmosphere is what most of this is about. The film employs most of the tricks of ghost based horrors and uses them repeatedly.

Conclusion

The film is effective, but it gets very close to overstaying it’s welcome and probably lacks re-watch value. It is ultimately a gimmick movie, but one with heart. I suspect most dog lovers will find it moving. It has one thing to say and it says it. The rest of it is standard supernatural horror stuff and being impressed by Indy. Some of the human acting is mediocre, but not painfully so and a fair amount of it doesn’t really make sense, but since the whole thing is largely metaphorical anyway that probably doesn’t matter. This is a definite recommend, and a strong 6.5/10. But I can’t give it higher, simply because the nature of the film limits its own scope. If you like dogs or have ever owned one, you will enjoy this film.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.