October Horror Movie Marathon

[Susan Foreman]

Originally Posted by Nordicdusk

TOO MUCH PENIS

[Nordicdusk]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

Yeah i can imagine it not being a fave if you have a slug phobia. It's not like the slugs are silly giant slugs like they would be in a fifties monster movie. No these slugs are black slugs, real life slugs and pretty revolting.

I watched it for last October and my stomach was sick for the whole film and even the rest of the night afterwards worst film I have ever seen

[Justin101]

Halloween II (2009)

This is one of those times where I have let other peoples opinions stop me from watching a film that I ended up enjoying. I'm going to spend 30 minutes re-reading people's reviews to see why they don't like it.

I liked it though, the direction, the aesthetic, the sound design (those stab noises), even the controversial white horse. It is brutal though and pretty sadistic, but it's the first time in a while that I've actually felt scared of Michael Myers, this version is bloody terrifying. I watched this on Netflix after putting it off for a long time and I think I'm going to try and find the bluray now for the permanent collection.

[MrBarlow]

The Reptile. 1966.

In a Cornish village the locals are being found dead from a snake bite, Harry Spalding and his wife arrive when Harry's brother become a recent victim and begin to look in on how he died.

This is something of a over looked Hammer Hammer movie, some of the actors we may or may not know but Hammer usual Michael Ripper does tag along as the Inn Keeper who knows what may be going on but keeps things hush hush.

Ray Barrett and Jennifer Daniel play the new arrivals who seem to be kept in the dark about what's been happening till they meet Mad Peter played by John Laurie who plays the almost village drunk. Noel Willman plays the local Doctor but not in medicine but of Theology and Marne Maitland plays the man servant who can be sinister looking on screen and hold his stare. Jacqueline Pearce plays the doctor's daughter and gives out a great performance and haunting moment during the Sitar sequence which is captured by great cinematography.

This does have a good amount of suspense and tension that is built up well from start to finish, the acting is very much solid, nobody tries to outshine anyone and the creature make-up effect is decently done. One film that you can watch over and over and never be bored.

Thereptileposter.jpg

Up next Count Dracula 1970.

[MrBarlow]

Count Dracula. 1970.

Christopher Lee returns to a role he is famous for but not in a Hammer Movie but in a Jess Franco film...yep you read it right, Mr Franco made a Dracula film and ran with it decently, I mean where has this classic tale of Stoker been hiding??

Forget the previous films and look at it as a fresh film, Klaus Kinski plays the mad one Renfield...although probably didn't have to act as was mad enough already and probably well suited and in comfort with the straight-jacket. Herbert Lom plays Van Helsing and does at times try to copy Peter Cushing a lot with the gazing of the eyes and trying not to blink at the most serious points. This version does seem to be close to the book with a ageing Dracula who gets younger by popping a victims artery in their neck, the castle itself with the interior is definitely atmospheric and Gothic looking. First time seeing this and certainly won't be the last.

Condedracula.jpg

Will try and get Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3 watched.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Halloween II (2009)

In my defence it's quite a while since i last saw Rob Zombie's second stab at the Halloween franchise and since i last saw it i've definitely become more of a fan of his work having loved films such as Lords of Salem (2012) and 3 From Hell (2019) with 2016's 31 growing on me more with each subsequent viewing.

Watching Halloween II again last night was kind of a new experience. I'd largely forgotten several parts of the story and other parts were in a different order to what i remember. Oh, yes, and the white horse wasn't on screen as much as my daft old head thought it was.

Like Justin referred to above, Halloween II is a sadistic and brutal film as well as being almost as dark and degrading as The Devil's Rejects (2005) and the afore mentioned 31. Helped by the fact Tyler Mane as Michael Myers is a genuinely frightening character, huge in build, incredibly powerful and shit scaring to look at, so much so that he makes other filmic Myers look like someone playing dress up in a cheap Captain Kirk mask. Busta Rhymes would not call him "Mikey" and practice karate on him, he'd run a f*cking mile like we all would.

As with all Zombie's output he has a great cast even in small supporting roles. His regular repertoire actors such as Daniel Roebuck, Jeff Daniel Phillips and Richard Brake make appearances as does the returning Malcolm McDowell as Loomis (This time trying to flog his book based on the first film's story). Meanwhile there's also roles for Sons of Anarchy faves Dayton Callie and Mark Boone Junior as well as Lois Lane herself Margot Kidder.

Best of all there's the brilliant Scout Taylor-Compton, back as Laurie Strode. Heresy alert! I actually prefer her as Laurie over Jamie Lee Curtis who thanks to subsequent appearances and changes to her character became almost as unkillable as Myers. Taylor-Compton doesn't try to fight Michael, she does what we'd all do and try and hide under a desk until he'd gone.

The film goes in depth as to how the events of two years previous affected the survivors. From Loomis attempting to make money from his experiences to Laurie attempting to get her life back together and then her complex psychological connection to Michael.

As for the white horse? Well it's led around by Sheri Moon Zombie as a ghostly Deborah Myers so that's fine by me. It adds a different ethereal dimension to the film above the typical slasher tropes and it really didn't feel out of place at all. The horse's final appearance is a proper 'F*ck me' moment that could have taken a third installment in a whole new direction.

Again echoing Justin. I too want this on Blu-ray. Not just for the upgrade but because my dvd (A non-rental version at that) had six minutes of trailers that were impossible to skip prior to watching the film.

[MacBlayne]

SEED OF CHUCKY

A Chuck off the old block.

An androgynous living doll realises that his parents are Chucky and Tiffany, who are the subject of an upcoming film. That film’s lead actress, Jennifer Tilly, is trying to resurrect her career by securing a role as the Virgin Mary. Chaos unfolds as she tries to seduce the director and maintain her reputation, while Chucky tries to come to terms with fatherhood.

Seed of Chucky is a complete mess of a film, but it is an extremely funny one. For every great idea or one-liner (“They’re executing Martha Stewart today.”), the film suffers from sloppy pacing and poorly-aged pop-culture references. Chucky kills Britney Spears, and makes the pun you’d expect.

Writer Don Mancini takes the director’s chair on this round, and while Seed of Chucky is a brightly coloured film, it is one lacking flair. Mancini doesn’t possess the bravura and style that Ronny Yu injected into Bride of Chucky. Yu also didn’t beat you over the head with the gags either. This is definitely a case of a director lacking confidence.

But, as mentioned, Seed of Chucky is hilarious. Brad Dourif is tremendous, struggling to overcome his murderous desires, raise a family, and trying and failing to make sense of the lunacy around him. That’s right, by the film’s climax, Chucky seems more sane than everyone around him. Billy Boyd is does a good job as Chucky’s child, and Redman deserves props for playing himself as a sleazy scumbag (Quentin Tarantino was originally offered the part, but thought it was too sleazy a role for him). But as with Bride of Chucky, it’s perhaps Tilly that walks away with the film. Whether she’s playing herself, or Tiffany the doll, she is a comic delight. Just the way she delivers dialogue like this:

REDMAN: I meant it when I said I was a big fan of yours.

TILLY: Really? What films did you like?

REDMAN: That one where you have the affair with the female neighbour. I must have watched that five or six times.

TILLY: Oh, yeah. Bound. Everyone likes that one.

The biggest surprise upon revisiting Seed of Chucky, is how it beats today’s progressive push in cinema, dealing with non-binary genderism in a way that is never mocking or patronising. Glen, or Glenda (they’re not sure) is never a tragic, confused figure, nor the butt of jokes. They seem comfortable about it. Tiffany accepts their child, and while Chucky doesn’t reject them, the humour comes from Chucky trying to rationalise it in his mind.

So while Seed of Chucky is a chaotic brew that never fully settles, it is one rich with ideas and sharp humour. Highly recommended, but be prepared to roll your eyes at many occasions.

[MacBlayne]

HELLRAISER (2022)

They finally did it. After so many disastrous sequels, after so many attempts, after Clive Barker joining, leaving, and joining again, they finally rebooted Hellraiser. But was it worth the wait?

Let’s start with the positives. Hellraiser 2022 is not a remake, nor a sequel, but a true reboot. It takes bits and pieces established in the first four films, and creates a whole new lore. I really appreciate this, since one of the biggest issues with re-dos is that they’re handed to people who don’t get the original, and just make a carbon-copy.

Unlike the Dimension sequels, Hellraiser 2022 looks like money was spent on it. The production design is neat. The Cenobites look nasty (a bit more about that later on), and a lot of the special effects are cool. There are some nifty visual tricks, such as when the world starts shifting to Hell. One scene in a van is impressively done.

Now, I’m going to beat this film with a rusty nailbat, but I do think it is worth watching. The first half is a drag, but the second half is a gory laugh.

First of all, the script is a shambles. It is a hodgepodge of some decent, unconnected ideas held together by over-exposition and terrible dialogue. I can’t say I was too surprised to see David S. Goyer credited as a producer and as a writer.

The characters in the film are deeply unlikable. I don’t mean that they are scumbags in over their heads. They are a dreary bunch who just whinge, complain, cry, and sulk. I hated these people, and felt no sense of loss or sympathy for them.

It probably doesn’t help that the acting isn’t good either. Granted, our cast don’t have the best character to play, but there’s never any charm to them. Unless it is an extreme close-up, none of them command the viewer’s attention. Only Goran Visnjic gets to exude any charm. Jamie Clayton is also very impressive as the new Pinhead, but she is held back.

While the new Cenobites are very cool to look at, they like the viscousness necessary to bring them to life. They don’t look like entities of mutilated bones and desiccated flesh. They look like extremely expensive Halloween costumes. A little KY Jelly would have benefited their new designs.

The biggest sin, especially for a Hellraiser film, is how it sits comfortably with an R rating. Not once is the viewer pushed with extreme, graphic imagery. There is blood, but nothing that ever makes you gasp. I remember watching the original Hellraiser when I was 13. My dad almost threw up at the opening scenes. This reboot would just bore him.

The film is very sexless too. There are two sex scenes, but they are that of thrusting under the blankets variety. I’m not trying to a sleazebag here, but Barker’s original films were very sexual in nature. The reasons why he tried to push the sex scenes as far as he could, was so that we can understand why the characters were lured to the Cenobites (and vice-versa).

And that’s another issue with these Cenobites. They feel more like generic monsters than the most extreme response to sadomasochism. When they attack, it’s doesn’t come from a place where pain and pleasure are blurred, but as a sense of sacrifice. Unlike the nightmare suggested by the original films, where those lured by the box were tortured for all eternity, this film suggests that the Cenobites merely kill as a sacrifice to their god. As I said, Clayton is great, but she’s just the head monster in this.

Clive Barker’s Hellraiser was, what I like to call, Catholic Horror. It wasn’t about teenagers getting punished for fooling around, but the guilt associated with temptation. Carnal pleasure was something to be ashamed of, and must be ripped away for the good of the soul. Obviously Barker does not believe this, but his Cenobites did.

Hellraiser 2022’s Cenobites do not. They are just monsters out to kill whoever they can. While the second half of the film is a fun ride, it was disheartening to see terrifying horror villains reduced to stupid runners. Hellraiser (1987) and Hellbound felt seedy, like glimpses into a side of human nature we’re not supposed to know about. Films that made you want to take a shower. Hellraiser 2022 is slick and clean. A film designed by Disney for the mainstream, and to kick off a new franchise where Pinhead can chase more teenagers. Which is fine, I guess, but one can’t help lament what could have been a new step for mainstream horror.

[Frankie Teardrop]

BERBERIAN SOUND STUDIO – Peter Strickland is pretty ace. Very few filmmakers in the UK possess anything like his audacity, certainly none who get anywhere near a projection booth and a paying audience. BSS, though more accessible than his later stuff, is fairly out-there from the outset – it’s a movie about the post-production of a (fictional) giallo, not exactly subject matter that you could imagine flying well with the stuffier recesses of the Film Council. There is a narrative to cling to, a fish-out-of-water scenario – Gilderoy, a mousy sound recordist from England, arrives in Italy to work on a horror movie requiring lots of squelchy, stabby noises, and the film is mostly taken up with the weird dynamics and mind games that surround him and ultimately lead to… well, that might be open to speculation. Something weird, anyway. The more interesting aspect for me is the way Strickland lays bare the construction process of horror only to reframe it as the SOURCE of horror – a weird inversion that sees banal scenes in recording booths and foley workshops take on sinister atmospheres as the line between the real and the fantastic slowly fades. Great stuff.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Frankie Teardrop

BERBERIAN SOUND STUDIO – Peter Strickland is pretty ace. Very few filmmakers in the UK possess anything like his audacity, certainly none who get anywhere near a projection booth and a paying audience. BSS, though more accessible than his later stuff, is fairly out-there from the outset – it’s a movie about the post-production of a (fictional) giallo, not exactly subject matter that you could imagine flying well with the stuffier recesses of the Film Council. There is a narrative to cling to, a fish-out-of-water scenario – Gilderoy, a mousy sound recordist from England, arrives in Italy to work on a horror movie requiring lots of squelchy, stabby noises, and the film is mostly taken up with the weird dynamics and mind games that surround him and ultimately lead to… well, that might be open to speculation. Something weird, anyway. The more interesting aspect for me is the way Strickland lays bare the construction process of horror only to reframe it as the SOURCE of horror – a weird inversion that sees banal scenes in recording booths and foley workshops take on sinister atmospheres as the line between the real and the fantastic slowly fades. Great stuff.

Did you see this on Blu, Frankie? Is the HD soundtrack (in whichever format) a step up from the dvd? As a film where sound is paramount to enjoyment it's intrigued me for ages.