Tag: Movie Review

80’s Horror Double Bill

Posted on by fenrisfil

Well, it’s Halloween and my final October Challenge review. Next year I will instead be enjoying myself at Universal Horror Nights in Florida and after five years of doing 31-35 reviews over October I feel I have well and truly defeated the challenge. I started out doing the reviews on facebook, but four years worth are on this blog that came into being as a result of this challenge. I just had to go one better than the usual October challenge. Don’t worry though, there will still be reviews on this blog. But I’m reclaiming my Octobers!

Anyway, I can’t finish on just one movie so I’m giving you a double bill review for Halloween with two movies from the 1980’s I haven’t seen before. Actually, both came to my attention through the “In Search of Darkness” documentary series on 80’s horror. Specifically this is “Blood Rage” from 1987 and “Night of the Demons” from 1988. Since this is a double bill I will keep the reviews relatively brief. Let’s get into it!

Blood Rage (1987)

Blood Rage is a low budget independent 1987 slasher from John Grissmer. It is a rare Thanksgiving based slasher. The movie stars Mark Soper as identical twins “Todd” and “Terry” with support from Louise Lasser as their mother and Julie Gordon as Terry’s girlfriend. The movie was a difficult production with Grissmer and Lasser not getting on at all and at least one actress failing to turn up forcing producer Marianne Kanter to take her place in a key support role. Grissmer even quit the production at one point, but Kanter convinced him to return. Bruce Rubin provides the script, Richard Einhorn the music and Richard E. Brooks cinematography. Ed French provides the special effects.

This is the story of twin brothers Todd and Terry. Terry is a psychopath and Todd is perhaps a little autistic (Not labelled as such in the film, but seems that way). Terry framed Todd for a violent murder when they were children and even though Todd’s psychiatrist believed he was innocent, thanks to his mother taking Terry’s side he remained locked up for ten years. Eventually he escaped and returned home one Thanksgiving. At the same time with his mother planning to marry, Terry is once again triggered into a psychotic rampage, but this time killing everyone he comes across. His plan apparently is to blame his brother again.

That’s Not Cranberry Juice

This is almost a good slasher film. It suffers from wildly inconsistent acting quality, the worst of which being the unfortunate producer Marianne Kanter, who was forced to take the role of Todd’s psychiatrist. Marianne did have acting experience but quit acting 20 years earlier to be a producer and after watching this I can see why. She’s a good producer, but a bad actor. Mark Soper is inconsistent in his performance, sometimes very good and able to keep his two roles feeling unique, but other times he was clearly phoning it in. Louise Lasser puts in the best performance, but was clearly viewing the film as more comedic than everyone else involved.

The story itself is at it’s core an interesting and original story. In execution however it ends up feeling quite ridiculous. Still, their are many kills in this slasher and they are all well executed (Excuse the pun). They are fast and brutal, with decent looking effects. Some of the gore is so over the top though, that it becomes comedic. I can’t help but imagine this is the kind of film that a movie like Terrifier will have taken influence from. Blood Rage could really have done with some more consistency. Embracing the comedic side would have been the better plan than shying away from it. Anyway, overall I was entertained and so it’s a safe 5.5/10.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Night of the Demons (1988)

Since this is my Halloween review, it’s only right to have at least one movie set on Halloween. So this is “Night of the Demons”. A 1988 horror movie from director Kevin S. Tenney and writer/producer Joe Augustyn. While not especially successful on release, the movie would garner enough of a cult following to earn it a couple of sequels and a remake. David Lewis provides cinematography and Dennis Michael Tenney (Kevin’s brother) provides the music. The movie stars Amelia Kinkade as “Angela Franklin” (Who would return for both sequels).

Goth girl Angela Franklin and her best friend Suzanne (Linnea Quigley) have arranged a Halloween party at an abandoned mortuary known as “Hull House”. The place is rumored to be cursed. Despite being somewhat of a social outcast as a weird goth the locals figure she will know how to throw a hell of a Halloween party. Turns out that would be an understatement but only through the aid of the demonic possession the place is under. When a demon gets into Suzanne, it quickly spreads the possession to others until only a handful remain and mus try and escape their former friends.

Hell of a Party

This is a movie that improves a lot as it progresses. It starts off on shaky ground with some weak acting and two dimensional character. That said, it progressive sensibly in the early stages setting things up and establishing the key characters. About half way through the movie kicks into gear as the demons start to possess the teenagers. At this point the plot is basically just “Survive if you can”. Not that it was a complex plot before this. Really there is no depth to the movie at all, but it is a movie that knows what it is and embraces it. Once the mayhem begins it’s quite fun and creative.

Amelia does a particularly good job as Angela. I can see why she is the only character to return, gothic wedding dress and all. I did enjoy this enough to want to track down the sequels. While some of the acting is iffy, the cinematography is pretty solid. The effects are often more goofy than shocking, but for this kind of film is fine. This is a good example of what you can do with a fun low budget horror. It’s nothing to write home about, but as it’s my final October Challenge review I’m feeling generous and so giving it a narrow 6/10. Grab some beers and popcorn and have some fun.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Sinister (2012)

Posted on by fenrisfil

In 2020, there was a study called “Science of Scare Project” designed to determined the scariest horror movie of all time. The study was deeply flawed, but it’s still interesting. By monitoring heart rate and beat variance they determined the movie “Sinister” as the winner. They’ve repeated it a few times, with Sinister gaining the top spot again this year. Naturally I wanted to see what the fuss was about. This is a Scott Derrickson horror. Scott has given us “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” (2005), “The Black Phone” (2021) and “The Gorge” (2025). C. Robert Cargill worked with Derrickson on the script. Christopher Norr provides cinematography and Christopher Young provides the score. Ethan Hawke takes the lead.

True crime writer “Ellison Oswalt” (Hawkes), is in pursuit of the story of his lifetime. He has just moved his family into the former home of the “Stevenson”, a family at the center of an unsolved multiple homicide. The entire family, save for a missing child was killed via hanging in the family garden. Ellison hasn’t shared any of this with his family. After a series of failed novels, he thinks this one could put him back on the best sellers list. In the attic of the house he finds a number of old film reels, each one containing evidence of a multiple homicide, including the one in the house. Instead of sharing this with the police he decides to break the case by himself. Unfortunately for him, something far more sinister is going on here.

Tension and Atmosphere

The movie does indeed provide a constant tense atmosphere. I didn’t really find it scary though. Obviously I’ve watched a lot of horror, but horror can work in many different ways. Here I wasn’t really sure what I was meant to be feeling. I wasn’t concerned for the family, I wasn’t unsettled by the concept and the death videos while individually disturbing were quite detached from the emotional part of the story. But I can’t deny the film had an atmosphere to it. Mostly in my view this came from the soundtrack. This is a dark, ambient score that drones and beats at just the right times to intensify everything you are seeing.

The pace is fairly slow, but relentless. This is probably why it scored so high on the heart monitor tests for that study. Through most of the movie you have a short lul followed by a build of tension (With that powerful soundtrack) and then some kind of jump scare. Rinse and repeat for the entire run time. The focus on Ellison though means the only character I actually invested in was him. But it’s also shown early on that Ellison is a glory hunting and virtue signaling hypocrite. So I don’t even like the one character I’m invested in. If this was something like “The Shining” or “Angel Heart” where we follow a characters descent to the darkness that would be fine. But that’s not the case here.

Cursed Videos

While watching this, I was reminded of the Japanese horror classic “Ring” (1998). There is a good reason for that it seems. The idea for Sinister came to Derrickson after watching that film and having a nightmare. Of course there are many films these days that involve discovering disturbing footage on old tape, VHS or other such mediums. There’s also a good number of horrors relating to witnessing something and thus being marked for death. A recent example of that is “Smile” (2022). So conceptually this isn’t a particular stand out, the question then becomes how well they executed the concept and this is a mixed bag.

Fairly early on in the film it is pretty obvious to me the direction it was going to go. The protagonist isn’t clued in to this though and it doesn’t dawn on him until it is too late that his family is in imminent danger. There’s a minor swerve at the end which didn’t really benefit the story and actually opened a minor plot hole. Specifically, it seemed an obvious thing that the police overlooked that would have had huge ramifications. Not as glaring as it was in “Weapons” mind, you could see this gaff actually happening (If unlikely). The story didn’t need the swerve and may have worked better from a character perspective without it. There are also questions relating to how this actually works. Ellison was a true crime righter, so his obsession made sense as well as not reporting the box of snuff movies to the police. What about the other victims?

Conclusion

Ultimately, this is a movie that succeeds on it’s ability to create a tense atmosphere. But it also requires that atmosphere to cover up for flaws. It has a vaguely derivative concept, a plot with a lot of holes and characters that are hard to care much about. The good news is that it does really succeed in this endeavor. If you aren’t watching it as a critic, I think most people would find the atmosphere alone enough of a winner. So this is still a good horror. It’s just not the best horror and in my opinion it is a long way from the scariest. This is a solid 6.5/10 and a recommendation. Just don’t believe all the hype.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Project Metalbeast (1995)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Tonight’s horror is another from the “Werewolf list”. That is the movies I decided to track down and watch after my disappointment with “Wolf Man” (2025). Eight movies in and I finally had the bad taste out of my mouth. But the list was longer than that, so I saved the rest up for this October challenge. This is perhaps the trashiest of the lot, but it looked like fun. Project Metalbeast is a direct to VHS horror directed by Alessandro De Gaetano. It scores a 4.5/10 on IMDb, but is still De Gaetano’s highest rated horror. That probably doesn’t bode well. The movie stars Barry Bostwick and Kim Delaney. Most notably though for horror fans is that Kane Hodder plays the werewolf. Kane of course is most famous for playing Jason Voorheese four times.

In 1974 a special ops solider manages to kill a werewolf and take it’s blood. The blood is taken back to Washington DC and investigated by a team lead by Colonel Miller (Bostwick), with the aim of creating super soldiers. Being ambitious and determined to benefit from the serum, the soldier takes it himself and is turned into a Werewolf. He is killed by Miller, but his body preserved cryogenically. Twenty years later, another team is investigating investigate a new technology synthesizing prosthetic skin with a metal alloy as a base. Miller takes control of the project and uses it to restore his frozen super solider, thinking he can now control him. But can he?

Because it Sounds Cool

This actually wasn’t as a bad as I was expecting. There’s not much to it however. Well, technically there is quite a lot to the set up. But the motivation behind creating an unstoppable werewolf seems to be… uh… because it’s cool? I don’t know. I guess Miller thought he could control it, but he never actually seems to present any method to do so. Instead he seems to just want to irritate the beast while also making him dangerous and indestructible. To me, this seems like a bad plan. This is an excellent example of a B-movie horror where the writers haven’t thought about anything beyond a premise they thought would be cool.

Now to be fair, taking a Werewolf and giving it metal skin is a pretty cool idea. Even if it sounds a little bit like they just read some Wolverine comics for inspiration. Actually, that the grafting was done against the man’s will really did make me think “Project X” (The project that grafted adamantium to Wolverines skeleton). The problem here is that the entire movie is an origin story. Actually getting the Metalbeast out and on the rampage is just the final act, as a result, there’s not really much of a story.

Conclusion

I don’t know what this movies production budget was, but as a direct to video horror we’re talking minimal. Given that, it doesn’t actually look that bad. The beast looks fine and the sets work well enough. The budget obviously stretched to bringing in Barry Bostwick. Not the best actor in the world, but he has charisma and a recognizable name. Delaney is a reasonable TV actor and of course Kane Hodder is a horror legend. But outside these three the cast is pretty weak and the cracks show through often. Some of the camera work is actually quite effective, but most of the time there isn’t much to show.

Overall…. Well, yeah. This is a bad horror movie. It’s conceptually a lot more interesting than it is in execution. It’s not the worst direct to video horror movie out there and the final act is quite fun. But that’s not enough to bump this up to even a conditional recommendation. Even if you like werewolf movies, you probably won’t get much out of this. This is a 4.5/10. Maybe a high 4.5, but it still doesn’t crack the 5. Give this one a miss, but maybe smile a little at the fact it exists. Oh and it’s still better than Wolf Man (2025).

Rating: 4.5 out of 10.

Maniac (1980)

Posted on by fenrisfil

We’re back to the world of 80’s horror again. This is 1980’s “Maniac” from director William Lustig, who would go on to create the Maniac Cop franchise in the late 80’s. The story is by Joe Spinell who also stars as the titular character. Spinell is mostly known as an actor. Cinematography is by Robert Lindsay and music is by Jay Chattaway. In the UK this was one of the infamous “Video Nasties” and was banned until 2002. This features the effects work of Tom Savini. Savini also has a small role as one of the victims and as a result got to blow his own head up. Effectively he was cast because he happened to already have a model of his own head for just such occasion. That’s Tom Savini for you.

The movie follows the exploits of deranged serial killer “Frank Zito” (Spinell) as he goes on a killing spree around New York City. Zito’s madness stems from his mistreatment at the hands of his deceased prostitute mother. So now he seeks out young women to kill. He also takes their scalps and puts them on his mannequins. After photographer “Anna D’Antoni” (Caroline Munro) takes his photo, he tracks her to her apartment. However, when he introduces himself he is invited inside as she recognized him from the photo. The pair start dating, but with Zito still dealing with his madness things cannot possibly last.

Character Study

This is an interesting horror film, but with a number of issues and limitations. The movie follows the psycho, which gives Zito a lot more depth than killers often get. The main problem is we don’t really get to know any of the other characters. Even Anna is just sort of there. It doesn’t help that she is so incredibly nice and friendly to this person that was very obviously stalking her. One of her colleagues Rita acts similarly when Zito randomly turns up at her apartment. She doesn’t invite him in and start dating him, but isn’t remotely freaked out but this near-stranger bringing her a bracelet. Moments like these took me out of the narrative. Really any scene not directly related to killing or madness was a negative.

The movie is a character study of a psychopath. These kinds of movies are fairly common these days, but in 1980 I can only think of a handful of examples that would have existed. Peeping Tom (1960) stands out the most and is easily a superior film. Better filmed, better acted and with a more complicated and involved story. However for what this film lacks, it attempts to make up for it with violence and gore. In it’s day, the violence would have been quite shocking. These days, not so much, but the kill scenes still stand out 45 years later as somewhat unique and original. Tom Savini’s effects work obviously helped, but the scenes are all well designed and emphasize the sheer terror of the situation.

Conclusion

Maniac is strangely boring for a movie with so much death and violence. We really know all we need to about the killer fairly early on and after that it just becomes rinse and repeat until he inevitably the wheels fall off the wagon. The scenes of madness are played out quite well and the kills are very well set up and executed. But despite that, what little plot surrounds it isn’t particularly interesting and most of the characters don’t feel realistic. Anna should have been introduced earlier. Instead second half of the movie feels rushed while the earlier half lacks content outside of kills and the killer talking to himself.

That’s the thing with this film, the script has some good ideas but fails in the detail and frankly with some of the basics. In places it is very atmospheric and it sort of rides the line between gritty 70’s horrors and 80’s slashers. Honestly, this is a hard one to score. Horror fans may find this interesting, but not ground breaking. There are certainly better psychopath character study movies out there. Overall I think this falls just short of a general recommendation. So this is a high 5.5/10 (High enough that I will round up to 6 for my IMDb score). One for the horror faithful out there, but the general audience probably won’t like it.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Stoker (2013)

Posted on by fenrisfil

“Stoker” (2013) is a movie that’s been on my watch list for a long time. This is director Park Chan-wook’s English language debut. This is the director of “Old Boy” (2003), a deeply disturbing, yet compelling revenge thriller that takes taboo to the extreme. This movie has a number of unique elements to it’s production. While Clint Mansel provides most of the music, Philip Glass was originally on board as composer and created a key piece of diagetic music for the film. The writer here is none other than “Captain Cold” himself, actor Wentworth Miller in his screenplay debut. The core cast is Nicole Kidman, Mia Wasikowska and David Alford. All very good actors, but none were the first choice. Chung Chung-hoon, a long time collaborator of the director, provides cinematography.He has also worked with Edgar Wright on his last two movies.

On the day of her eighteenth birthday “India Stoker” (Wasikowska) and her mother “Evelyn” (Kidman) are shocked to learn of the death of India’s father “Richard” in a car accident. India is a very distant and cold young lady who rarely forms attachments and has no friends. The family are however very well off. At the wake, the pair are surprised at the arrival of Richards brother “Charles”, a man neither were aware of. Supposedly he has been traveling the world. After discussion with Evelyn, it is revealed he is staying with the family for a while. Richard is a charming man, but it becomes clear to India something isn’t quite right with him. But then the same is true of India.

The Elephant in the Room

So this is the second Park Chan-wook movie I have seen, the previous one being Oldboy. If you don’t want a major Oldboy spoilers, skip the rest of this paragraph. I find it a little odd both these movies involve incest. In Oldboy the incest was unintentional and part of a convoluted revenge scheme. Here it is entirely intentional and there is no illusion of innocence on either party. It is at least between an uncle and niece instead of a father and daughter, but it’s still incest. This is a psychological thriller of course and the pair in question are both psychopaths. So it’s not like these are characters of high morality. This is a very dark story.

So now we’ve acknowledged the elephant in the room. It’s time to talk about the rest of it. Park Chan-Wook is a very good director with an eye for detail. He can tell a dark story like this and fill it with subtle symbolism. Perhaps the problem here is that it’s a very obvious and somewhat blunt story. Unlike Oldboy there isn’t really a mystery here, at least not one you can’t guess fairly easily. It’s pretty clear India and Charles are psychopaths. The way it plays out leaves a lot of questions as to if certain things are real or not, specifically the duet piano piece the pair play, which may just be in India’s imagination. The trouble is, it doesn’t really mater.

Duet

So this is a film with a bit of a disconnect between the story and the presentation. But this isn’t really a plot based story. As I said, you can largely tell where it will all go. This is a character based horror, where the symbolism is all reflective of the mental state of it’s primary psychopath, India. Regardless of whether the piano duet scene is real or in her head, it is an incredibly scene. The piano piece was written by Philip Glass specifically for the movie. It was designed as a duet that requires one of the players to effectively embrace the other by requiring them to reach around to their other side to complete it. It’s actually an incredible piece of music in itself and easily the best scene.

That said, I didn’t find India particularly compelling as a character. She’s creepy, but also intentionally somewhat blank. Instead Charlie, who is presented as the classic charismatic, manipulative psychopath is far more interesting. But since we never really know how much of his appearance is genuine or India’s imagination, his impact is also diminished. Evelyn is also an interesting character, a woman determined to handle her burden with elegance. It’s a subtle performance from Nicole Kidman that really works. Yet she is not really given a lot of screen time. There is so much good in this film, yet the movie seems far more concerned with the incestuous romance angle.

Conclusion

The screenplay is a problem in my view. Wentworth Miller is not a script writer by trade, but obviously had an idea he thought was good. The screenplay remained unproduced for a long time but found it’s way on to the famous “Black list” of best unproduced screenplays. I can see why, it has compelling elements but also feels like something very difficult to make work. For Park Chan-wook, this is his first English language movie. Yet he is not fluent and required a translator. Between these two factors I believe this is why the film feels such a mixed bag. On one hand it is visually and socially compelling and the director got solid performances from all the actors. Hard to say if this is the director or just that all three of the leads are very good actors anyway.

Ultimately this is going to be a difficult one to rate. I did not like the story. I did not really buy India’s character or really enjoy her presentation. Her voice over also felt unnecessary. But the movie is well made from a technical standpoint. I suspect I may not have a true score for this until I’ve had more time to think on it and maybe give it a second viewing. I could end up adjusting it anywhere from a 5.5-7.5. It’s that kind of movie. As it stands, despite this review probably sounding more negative than positive, I think the movie is worth watching. This is a more likely to win awards than fill theaters. It’s sort of unpleasant to watch, yet compelling too. I’m giving it a 6.5/10.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

The Man From Planet X (1951)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Tonight we’re hitting the 50’s. The era that popularized science fiction horror. It paved the way for films like Alien, Terminator, Pitch Black, Event Horizon and even Terrorvision. In most cases these early sci-fi horrors were more firmly science fiction with horror elements where as now it’s more the other way around. This is “The Man From Planet X” and independent movie from 1951. Directed by Edgar G Ulmer and written by Aubrey Isberg and Jack Pollexton. John L Russell provides cinematography and Charles Koff the music. The movie stars Robert Clarke, Marget Fielding and William Schallert.

A rogue planet enters our solar system on a trajectory that will take it close to Earth. “Professor Elliot” (Raymond Bond) sets about observing it, but the encounter becomes far closer than expected. When his daughter Enid (Fielding) stumbles upon an alien craft in the Scottish highland, the professor and American journalist “John Lawrence” (Clarke) go to investigate. Finding the alien apparently non hostile they return to their lab with the being and try to communicate. Unfortunately the professors colleague Dr. Mears (Schallert) has his own plans for the alien. With his betrayal, the alien becomes hostile and with the threat of invasion it is down to Lawrence to stop the being.

Close Encounter

This is a very simple movie, but where it stands out among a flood of sci-fi horrors of the period is the ambiguity. The audience never gets to find out the truth of their visitors attention. The heroes speculate that the alien was peaceful but that the assault from the ambitious Dr. Mears forced him to change plans. The implication is that these beings wanted to co-exist with humanity on Earth but were willing to take the world by force if necessary. Since we don’t hear this from the alien it is entirely human speculation. However, usually you’d expect either evil aliens trying to conquer Earth or benevolent ones aghast at the behavior of humanity. The ambiguity is probably more realistic.

The alien itself is pretty interesting, especially for the period. It looks humanoid, but not at all human like. The blank expression of course was partially down to what they could do with FX at the time, but it works. That the alien tries to communicate with music tones is a great concept and I suspect one that heavily influenced Stephen Speilberg many years later for “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”. They don’t actually make much of it here because the person that figures it out is a villain and so wants to keep it secret. The characters here are all somewhat one dimensional and merely service the plot, but the acting is good enough throughout.

Conclusion

Overall this is a mildly entertaining movie that doesn’t overstay it’s welcome. The concept is interesting and the acting is solid. But there’s not a lot more to it than that. There’s no particularly memorable scenes, none of the characters are particularly interesting and none of the performances stand out. It’s all just very average, at least though a modern lens. I can only give this a 5.5/10. Only recommended for those that like 50’s sci-fi.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

The Invisible Man Returns (1940)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For tonight’s movie I’m hitting two classic Halloween elements at once. One is a Universal Monsters movie and the second is Vincent Price. This was Price’s fourth movie role and his first horror. Yes, this is Vincent Price’s first horror. Of course since he plays the titular character, you don’t actually see him for the vast majority of the movie. He does get off a laugh though! The movie is directed by Joe May, with a screenplay by Lester K. Cole and Curt Siodmak. Milton Krasner provides cinematography and Hans J. Salter and Frank Skinner provide the score.

Geoffrey Radcliffe (Price) has been sentenced to death for the murder of his brother Michael, a crime he did not commit. On the night before his execution his friend Dr. Frank Griffin (John Sutton), the brother of the original invisible man, visits him, giving him the invisibility drug. Deterective Sampson (Cecil Kellaway) from Scotland yard is not fooled however, remembering the case of the original Invisible Man and is on his trail. Geoffrey meets up with his fiancé Helen (Nan Grey) at a remote farmhouse and is already struggling with the side effects of the drug that lead to madness. The race is on for Dr. Griffin to find a cure, while Geoffry attempts to find who really killed his brother.

The Price of Invisibility

Often when you watch an early movie from a great actor, their performance is a little underwhelming. This isn’t the case here. The voice isn’t quite what you would remember from price, but the performance was classic Price. What always made the actor stand out to me, especially in horror was that while he would deliver an authorative and powerful performance he would do it with a great vulnerability behind it. In many ways he makes the perfect tragic horror character. This is one of the reasons why my favorite version of “I am Legend” is his “The Last Man In The Earth”.

It’s a shame Price never got to play a werewolf. But this isn’t far from it, a tragic hero on the verge of madness. His performance is subtle compared to his later horrors were he would ramp everything up to eleven, but covers a range of emotions. We get sadness, self loathing, despair, anger, and megalomania. We even get some maniacal laughter. It’s a shame we don’t get to see him until the very end. So it’s like half a performance. Price aside, the effects are actually incredibly good for 1940. So full credit to Universal’s FX wizard John Fulton. Some of these effects even hold up today.

Conclusion

The plot is more complicated than the previous Invisible Man movie. The film is also ten minutes longer, though still falling under the hour and a half mark. Indeed it’s probably a little short for the content, leaving it feeling a little rushed. Not drastically so, but film doesn’t waste time. The supporting actors are reasonable, but don’t stand out. The music is somewhat uninspired, mostly reusing music from previous Universal horror movies. There’s nothing remotely scary on display here and the mystery has no real depth to it. None of this is overly bad, just very average for the period.

There are two elements that raise this movie from being merely average. Vincent Price and the quality of the effects. Without that, this movie would be a five out of ten. However price is the perfect choice for the invisible man and the effects have aged remarkably well. As a result this is a strong 6/10 and a recommendation. If you like Price or Universal horror, then put this one on your list.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

The Popes Exorcist (2023)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For tonight’s movie I’m checking out the Russel Crowe lead exorcism horror “The Popes Exorcist”. This is a fictional story, based on a real life exorcists experiences. Specifically that of Father Gabriele Amorth. Perhaps the most famous real life exorcist, who has written multiple books on his experiences. The film stars Russel Crowe as Amorth, with Daniel Zovatto, Alex Essoe, and Franco Nero supporting. It was directed by Julius Avery (Who made the pretty good horror “Overlord” in 2018). Michael Petroni and Evan Spiliotopoulos provide the screenplay. Cinematography is by Laurie Rose and Fabian Wagner and the Jed Kurzel provides the soundtrack.

Father Gabriele Amorth (Crowe), returns to Rome from his latest assignment and is tasked by the Pope (Nero) to take on a potential exorcism in Spain. The Pope has deep concerns about this one and fears a powerful demon my be involved. He is sent to an old Abbey that has recently been inherited by a woman called “Julia” and her children “Henry” and “Amy”. The Abbey was the sole possession of Julia’s husband, who passed away recently. They intend to renovate and sell the property to deal with their financial issues. However the work on the Abbey seems to have freed a demonic spirit that has taken possession of young Henry. It is up to Father Amorth and a young local priest “Father Tomas Esquibe” to exorcise the demon and free the child.

The Devil in The Detail

This is actually surprisingly good. But it does suffer from the big problem of exorcism movies. They all tend to follow the formula of the original Exorcist and as a result they tend to lack much in the way of originality. It’s like if 90% of slashers were set at lakeside camps. You basically know to expect a couple of priests, a child in a bed saying all kinds of nasty stuff and some special effects designed to make the possessed extra disturbing. Because of all this, it’s one of my least favorite genres. When I do like possession movies it’s usually ones that approach it differently such as “Nefarious“, “Fallen” or “Exorcist III”.

Given we know what to expect, what makes this movie stand out? Well, some very good special effects for those disturbing moments, it uses a real life exorcist as the lead character and Russel Crowe puts in a top notch performance. The finale also moves past the usual exorcist tropes to provide something a bit more visually satisfying. It’s interesting to note, Crowe was in another exorcism film recently “The Exorcism”, which did do something different… and wasn’t very good. So it’s not always about having the original idea, sometimes it’s all in the execution. The movie is well paced too and does a good job of working in callbacks and the two priests respective weaknesses.

Conclusion

This is a pretty fast paced exorcism movie, wasting almost none of it’s 103 minute running time. It also makes the most of it’s $18m production budget. A fairly normal budget for a horror. The style of the effects seems heavily influenced vengeful spirit movies, including the whole upside down walking on fours thing and limbs moving in inhuman ways. It works well here and the small main cast keeps it tight and efficient. We probably need need the scenes with the other priests and the pope, but then when you call a film “The Pope’s Exorcist” you probably do want the pope in it.

Overall this is one of the better exorcism movies. Not that it’s a highest of bars. In many ways these are similar to Werewolf movies. That is to say, it’s easy to make them, but very hard to make a good one. They succeeded. This is a strong 6.5/10. I can’t really give it higher, because it’s still basically just following the exorcism movie formula. I wasn’t blown away, but I had a good time and it was better than I expected.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

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.