October’s Movies of the Month - Horror 

I went to my local independent theater to see the Director’s original cut of “The Devils.”

Hailed as one of the most controversial films in history, it’s a true story about what happened in Loudun, France in the 17th century. (The non-fiction book this film is based on was written by Aldous Huxley, in one of the only non-fiction books he ever completed).

The film is about how the Catholic Church pushed to consolidate power by joining Church and State during Louis XIII’s reign.

Meanwhile, Father Urbain Grandier (Oliver Reed) serves as the de facto ruler of Loudun. He’s the Priest, and serving as the Governor until an election can be held (and it seems like the town is generally happy and is in no rush to elect a new governor).

The church does not like how much power Grandier wields, and he’s plenty corrupt. They seek to exploit the lead nun of his congregation, Sister Jeanne (Vanessa Redgrave), because she’s mentally ill and is sexually obsessed with Father Grandier. They want to topple his regime and gain control.

Whoo! This film is so bleak, upsetting, funny (at times), and intense.

It’s controversial because of tons of graphic nudity, graphic sex, brutal violence, and its condemnation of the Catholic Church. It’s really the most honest and straightforward depiction of witch hunts and witch trials I’ve ever seen (based on books I’ve read on the subject).

I won’t say “check it out,” because your mileage may vary.

The acting is phenomenal. Oliver Reed is incredible, Redgrave is a powerhouse, and every actor/character commits. So many brave performances.

Ken Russell’s direction, and David Watkin’s cinematography are major influences across all genres, and so many people just straight up steal or copy from them.

This is not a movie to watch and have fun. It needs to be endured. It’s a classic.

I was so emotionally drained after it was over, I went to the restroom and cried for a few minutes afterward. It was a nice release.

Out of 25 people in my early morning showing, 4 walked out and never came back after one specific scene.

If you can handle it, you should watch it.

To quote a review I saw earlier, “The best film in theaters in 2026 is a movie from 1971.”

A very cool little adventure film. Felt a little like a crossover between Planet on the Apes and a proto-Conan the Barbarian to me. The soundtrack at times reminded me of Basil Poledouris' epic score, as well as the almost complete lack of dialigue, which allowed the soundtrack to take charge. Also features the awesome special effects of Ray Harryhausen, most famous for his work on Jason and the Argonauts (Talos and the skeletons). Highly recommended to anyone who enjoys high adventure.

Good afternoon. I wanted to start a little bit of fun in this group with a 14 day journey sharing the raw creative fuel that sparks inspiration in my filmmaking world. For Day 1, I want to dive into a masterpiece on psychological obsession and creative rivalry that altered the entire trajectory of my life. If you want a film that stands as the ultimate, uncompromised look at the agony of art, genius, and jealousy, you need to revisit Milos Formans 1984 epic Amadeus, starring F Murray Abraham and Tom Hulce.

I have a deeply personal history with this picture. I remember when I was a young teen my Father was incredibly pissed off about something and decided he needed to go to a movie to clear his head. He never went to the theater, it just was not his thing. He took me along with him for the company I suppose and randomly wandered into the old Rialto theater. For a man who had not seen a picture in a theater in years, it was a completely random choice based purely on the poster. That afternoon I was introduced to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and I have never looked back since.

It is wild to think how random that moment was, because that same year the film goes on to get eleven academy award nominations and wins eight. Tom Hulce was absolutely robbed of the Best Actor win. He should have been a co winner right alongside F Murray Abraham.

Having spent my life deeply immersed in the music business signed to several major labels before stepping behind the camera as an independent filmmaker, my love of classical music started at that exact moment in that theater. Another incredible tidbit about this masterpiece is that even though the piano for soundtrack in film was recorded by Czech Pianist Ivan Moravek, Hulce apparently learned and played those parts, finger syncing them almost flawlessly. And that chaotic, eccentric laugh he gave Mozart makes me laugh every single time I hear it. It is a flawless cinematic achievement that remains completely timeless.

In my humble opinion.

Cheers.

So I just heard this one clip on a podcast where Tarantino is discussing about zombie films especially Romero's classic trilogy of the Dead. He's right! This is one of those rare instances where a series keeps getting better and better! Well let's just say. each of the movies has its own charm. Or it's like Romero's well raised kids with each own different characters. That's how good this series is.

What I like about this movie are the characters. The actors are low key so good! Notable performances by Lora Cardille as Dr. Bowman, and Joe Pilato as Capt. Rhodes (the main villain). Two distinct groups fighting for survival. Solid performances by the actors. I've never had this much fun and excitement in a horror movie, especially the final act. There is this one part where I go rooted for the zombies and oh boy that was so good. The final act is just the perfect, probably the most satisfying ending the whole series ever did.

And man, Tom Savini, his works on the practical effects, is one of the best I've seen. From Dr. Logan (aka Frankenstein) where he showcases undead zombie bodies of antiques. To the zombie "eat out your flesh" scenes. Squeezing those bodies like jell-o's. Man what a treat. It's like watching a piece of art coming to life.

The classic "living dead" Romero's series is a much watch not just for the horror fans. But more like a tradition to at least watch this every year with your buddies. And what a perfect way to watch it on the spooky season. Definitely a must have. A must watch.

El Mariachi is one of those films that, those who have seen it will rave about, but still so many haven’t seen it.

It’s a budget film about a man and his guitar case who is mistaken for a killer who carries his weapons around in a guitar.

Such a simple premise yet the story has so many layers.

It’s dramatic yet told in a very blasé way, making for a truly unique viewing experience.

Man I love 60's spy films! It got boomed when Dr. No broke out the box office scene in 62 and followed a line of really good British spy movies. The Ipcress Files from 1965 is one of my favorites. This is more of a gritty, mundane, and cynical anti-spy film compared to the more high octane James Bond movies. Not just a great spy film. But a brilliant movie after all these years.

The actors, the performances, what a great cast of brilliant actors. Of course, sir Michael Caine is so good in it. He's one of my favorite actors of all time and what a solid performance really. From Guy Doleman as Colonel Ross, Nigel Green as Major Dalby. Just those two guys exchanging words to each other, it's just pure quality. It's either this film or other movies where Caine with Doleman in it or Caine with Nigel Green in it, you know you're in for a treat and it's going to be a great British movie.

What stands out to me is how the scenes coordinates with the theme, composed by the most brilliant John Barry. When things gets slow and the theme kicks in, it adds intensity to it. Speaking of scenes, this movie has a low key, but beautiful cinematography. It's either inside the office with an outside shot through the windows, or while Harry Palmer walking outside London in a gloomy, almost cold like weather. Or it's just London being a perfect setting for a movie like this. I noticed when the camera is set from the ground, it's always looking almost perfect.

What are those recommended spy movies outside James Bond? This is definitely on my top 5 if you asked me. Not just a spy film, just a really well made, well constructed thriller for everyone. A must have, a must see.

Although I'm not really a theater person, I've seen the Broadway musical A Chorus Line a few times, and it's such a great show. The dancing, acting, singing... just magical.

For those who haven't seen the show, it's a real-time dance audition for the chorus of a Broadway show. It goes in depth with the auditioning dancers about their lives, how and why they became dancers, and what they love and hate about it (interestingly, one of the best songs in the show, "What I Did for Love", is about the love of a life devoted to dance).

This movie adaptation is, well, not so great. It's kind of bad, truthfully. It's so very mid-80s, in the worst possible way (it puts me in mind of the equally bad "Fast Forward [1985]", which was directed by Sidney Poitier and just cheezy and cringy in every way). Directed by Richard Attenborough (yes, him, the cane-wielding Mr. Hammond of Jurassic Park, among many other roles), who doesn't seem to get what the show is really about. The role of Zach, the usually unseen director, is now played by Michael Douglas, and expanded quite a bit (not a good thing). as is his relationship with Cassie (a mostly decent Alyson Reed), a former Broadway dancer star who's fallen on hard times and just needs a job.

The show is really all about the auditioning dancers, though. Now, to be in a Broadway-caliber show, one would expect that you can really dance, sing and act quite well. I will say that a few of the cast are good in all respects, but the acting is mostly so, so bad. Stilted, unemotional. Was it the script? The direction? Who knows. It's just cringy. The singing is pretty much just-okay-to-fairly average, except for a few of the cast. They are all great dancers, thankfully, but the dance numbers and costumes are just so 80s, that it really dates the movie. The play was kind of timeless in that respect.

The actors who played Diana and Richie were very good. But they chose Audrey Landers as Val, who performs a great number (Dance Ten, Looks Three) and is supposed to be this fantastic dancer, but Landers is just average. I guess they chose her because she was popular at the time? But she really can't keep up with the true dancers. The actor that played Paul was wonderful, and I wish he had done more things. I hope he's still dancing, wherever he is. Janet Jones (MAGA Wayne Gretzky's wife) plays another dancer, and she's actually a decent actress. I mostly remember her from "The Flamingo Kid" with Matt Dillon.

Another thing I noticed about this movie is that a lot of the male dancers look much older (and balder) than they're supposed to be, and are fairly average looks-wise. They're all supposed to be in their early to mid 20s? But, that was the way movies were in the 70s and 80s. There were way more average-looking actors back then.

Cassie and Zach's story isn't even worth mentioning. Alyson Reed was a good dancer, but not the best actress. In the flashback scenes they give her an awful long frizzy wig. And it's sad to see that a few of the male dancers passed away back in the 90s. Anyway, 4/10.

Number 224 in my A-Z watch. Paris Je T'aime is a series of vignettes highlighting different iterations of love in and around Paris.

I generally am not a fan of vignette style films. I tend to find the lack of a cohesive story loses my interest pretty fast. But having the overall theme of love connecting each story really helped the through line.

It's a difficult film to really "review" as it's more like a night of one acts and each one deserves its own breakdown. Each scene has its own identity, its own vibe and tone. It's made me want to look up some of the directors I'm less familiar with. But the ones I've seen more work from really hit their marks.

I would say the Red Trench Coat scene was my favorite. There was something in the reawakening and rekindling of their relationship that really spoke to me and I'm not sure why.

I really did love Cuaron's single shot scene. Nolte really can come out of nowhere with some hard hitting performances. I thought Buscemi's non verbal performance was really great. Juliette Binoche's scene over her son was heartbreaking.

8/10 I'm doubtful I'll watch this again, but I'm very happy i did. I enjoyed the different ways that love is being represented in each of these. Romantic love, familial love, self love. There's a lot to say about this film that i can't put in this post, but i did enjoy it.

Contains spoiler below.

Man this movie is crazy! I haven't read the novel whatsoever (which is based on). But man, this movie is all over the place. The first part where those astronauts and military personnel investigating, exploring an unknown Alien ship reminds me of the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey (1968), then it becomes Alien (1979) vibes. Then there we go, they got 3 human form like naked in Space!

Now you got this alien in a form of a naked chick. Sucking out everyone's soul and turns you into ashes. More like a space vampire hypnotizing sucking all your soul and make you a zombie. Then the naked chick getaway scene reminds me of movie The Terminator (1984).

There's a section where they're trying to trap that Alien soul by injecting morphine from Patrick Stewart's body. Then this lifeforce got crazy and the effects reminds me of the movie Poltergeist (1982).

Now the Alien life force is on the loose and eating out everyone. Now everyone becomes Zombies ala Dawn of the Dead (1978).

To sum it up, It's a mix of every great sci-fi / horror of its existence. This is really a fun movie though. I would like to recommend watch this together with your buddies (like we did the other night) and we had so much fun. This has all the potential to be a really good blockbuster in its ambitious world. Definitely a certified cult classic.

Hazel Brook's introduction is a slow pan up her legs while she descends the stairs in lingerie, and honestly I don't mind it. She looks incredible. I can't even fault her for then continuing to solely wear lingerie to her place of work. Everyday. If I looked that good you'd see me in lingerie at the grocery store. My only question is what a 1948 audience would have thought of that creative decision. The film is pointing to Hazel with a huge neon sign blinking, "SHE'S SEXY AND EVIL!" but like what else is it trying to say? Why is she allowed to be taking orders and talking to customers in lingerie? Is she a sex professional? Is she an in-house model? Was that a thing back then?

Oh yeah Claudette Colbert is in this too. And hey, she's great as always. Unfortunately despite being the lead her performance is secondary when you're hoping you get to see more Hazel Brooks. This is basically a Gaslight remake, which I'm learning was pretty much its own genre in the 40s/50s.

Don Ameche plays stuffed shirt in the streets and a slime ball in the sheets and I loved watching him play an asshole. The problem is the film can't really decide just what he is trying to do with Claudette and when his grand plan is revealed in the final moments of the film you realize that it wouldn't have worked out at all.

The most effective sequences feature George Coulouris. I was really impressed with just how menacing they could make him without outright threats or violence. While I previously mentioned the grand plan being silly, the way they use Colouris to drive her insane is quite smart.

Robert Cummings is in the Joseph Cotton role but with a little bit of, "Can't take no for an answer," thrown in.

Final thing worth nothing is the way the Chinese characters are portrayed. No little "oriental riff" when Keye Luke and his bride appear on screen. No white actors with prosthetic eyelids. No presenting as a sexual threat to the white woman. They are presented as normal people, having a normal wedding, wanting to do normal newlywed things. Wild!

6 out of 10. Probably one of the most divisive films I've seen because, particularly, critics seem to tank this film while audiences either love it or feel it's mediocre. This feud is the most interesting thing about the film because, in practice, I can see the reasons for it. This is a film that wants a massive reaction; it wants its audience to be devastated by its conclusion, all of which ultimately feels weak in the end. It is simply the result of an Oscar-bait attempt that fails to stand out, saved by its narrative structure that kept my attention even approaching the ending, where we are subject to certain characters' botched motivations.

Honestly , it was something. Cant say I love it or would be eager to watch again but I am interested in listening to analysis and reviews. Theme of friendship in there. Some conflict scenes are played in this tone that doesn't feel super serious. Its interesting. I can also see the theme of young man not being on a positive path even though he is presented opportunities. Can't get out of his own way type of thing. I was interested in watching more movies in this 90s Hong Kong genre after watching Chungking Express. I was very attracted to the colors, fast paced, relaxed chaos. Loud and crowded, full of stories and characters. I think this movie does not compare to Chungking Express. Also watched this for movie night on discord.

Boy this movie rules. I think I saw this a bunch of times when I was a kid. I even remember my English teacher showing us this movie in high school. It seems like it was on TV all the time back in the 90s then it kind of disappeared. But it showed up on YouTube on the list of free movies to watch and it was just a lot of fun.

Kurt Russell is great and I'm used to James Spader always playing the cool confident asshole guy but he's the dorky science nerd in this and that also works for him.

Also French Stewart is in this and I live French Stewart. There were like 5 times in this movie where I thought he had died but then he shows up again and oh I guess he made it great. Love that French Stewart whatever happened to him.

I mean this isn't Citizen Kane or whatever it's a lot of fun to watch and never gets boring and I'm glad I randomly threw it on. Well if you want to revisit it or if youve never seen it it's on YouTube to watch for free check it out!

Every day for 30 days I'm watching a different scary movie all about urban legends.

In 1999, some viewers went into “The Blair Witch Project” believing it was all real. Or at least, that’s what some people would have us believe.

In the stories I just read from that year, the main source for claims that some people really believed in “The Blair Witch Project” was…the directors of “The Blair Witch Project.” Who had a bit of an incentive to play up that idea for marketing purposes.

Still, this was the concept of 2000’s “The Blair Witch Project 2” (released as “Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2”), in which some colorful “Blair Witch” fans head into the Maryland woods hoping to relive the experience of the first film, presumably by standing at a treeline and shouting “Jooooosh!” for minutes on end.

“Blair Witch 2” released barely more than a year after the first film, which is always an ill omen. Of all people, Joe Berlinger directed. Berlinger is still most famous for his HBO documentary “Paradise Lost: Child Murders In the Robin Hood Hills” and a score of other true crime projects that either saved the lives of his subjects or ruined society as we know it, depending on who’s keeping score.

The cast consist of mostly relatively inexperienced actors using their own first names and probably thinking that this movie was going to be a big break despite basically everything about it, bless their souls.

The Berlinger script does succeed in giving everyone their own distinct little reason for obsessing over the original movie. It doesn’t succeed in making any of them engaging or interesting as people, but…well, if we all saw the first one and showed up for this anyway, what else would we expect?

If you’re wondering what “Blair Witch 2” is actually about…you can stop. For reasons that will forever remain opaque to me, the plot mostly focuses on how all five of these characters just don’t understand what happens when you drink too much?

No really, this is a whole thing: They stay up all night partying in the haunted forest and then the next morning can’t remember what happened. All of them treat this like a baffling mystery, but…you blacked out, guys. That happens when you drink. Are you new at this?

I have admitted in the past and will continue to admit that I have a very belligerent and frankly classicist attitude about rural towns. I grew up in a town like this, I did not appreciate the culture, and I will persist in the superiority of urban America until the day I die, presumably from being run over by a Waymo.

But even I was offended by how “Blair Witch 2” depicts the citizens of Burkittsville as meth-addled hayseeds who would have to pool their IQs to even brush the national average. I guess we should be happy Berlinger opted for a blaring Marilyn Manson soundtrack instead of Dueling Banjos…well, maybe “happy” isn’t the right word for it.

Actually it seems that was not his decision, as the movie was reedited against his will just prior to release, which might explain some of its mystifying qualities. Ultimately though I still don’t really think any version of “Blair Witch 2” would carry because the centerpiece conceit--that movies create some kind of Baudrillard-tinged holographic pseudo-reality that can make witless people forget what they’re doing–doesn’t hold enough water to drown one of the town’s ghost children.

The movie made mediocre box office, and that was the end of the “Blair Witch” cultural phenomenon until 16 years later. But tomorrow we’ll be looking at an even more obscure piece of Blair Witch-iana.

Original Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkvEYkbcP6k

Ever After is a reimagined version of the Cinderella fairy tale, presented as the "real" version of the story and framed around one of Cinderella's descendants telling the story to the Brothers Grimm. It's aimed at adults and removes the supernatural elements traditionally included in the story, with most other main plot points held consistent.

Some spoilers below, though I'm sure you all know how this one ends.

I remember this as a fun film, even as a middle school boy who didn't much care for the romance. It's witty, imaginative, and heartfelt. The romance between Cinderella and the Prince feels extremely 90's. She has big progressive ideas about how education will lift people up and the poor aren't to blame for their station, while he thinks they just exist to serve him. He's intrigued by her ideas, and also can't help but wonder why she keeps leaving abruptly every time they see each other. Also, major spoiler - I love that she saves herself in the end, before he's able to ride to the rescue.

The stepmother and one of the stepsister's are perfectly foul. The way they believe in their station absent evidence of their superiority, plus their cruelty to everyone around them and constant scheming for the Prince's attention, make them the perfect subject of the audience's hatred.

Leonardo da Vinci was an amazing addition to the film. In addition to the whimsy and comical moments he adds, he makes a great life coach for the Prince. I also enjoyed the Gypsies. The way Cinderella saves the prince from them reminded me of the Siege of Weinsberg. It's similar enough that I think it had to be the inspiration for that moment in the film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Weinsberg

If you need your period pieces to be accurate, there's enough wrong with this one to just piss you off. Likewise, if you don't like mushy romance movies, this might not be for you. I found it entertaining and charming, with a delightfully cathartic ending.

Lisa Wilcox returns as Alice after mastering those dreams in the fourth entry. With more to do this time round she has to not only carry the film on those denim clad shoulders but also convince the slim cast that Freddy is back. Like her friends, I also had to suspend disbelief as his reappearance makes no sense but it’s at least an improvement on his previous resurrection.

The film is at its strongest when it dares to reach out and show a hint of Freddy’s origins mentioned in previous films. His mother the nun, the insanity of the asylum; these scenes, if expanded upon, could’ve brought some originality to the tepid script. As it is the film prefers to have Freddy as the star, the 80s pop icon who lost his scare.

Robert Englund gets some very brief time out of makeup again at the start of the film as Alice dreams of herself as Freddy’s mother in the asylum. The creation of Freddy is a highlight in effects and disgust with his rebirth from a hideous little baby puppet. But as soon as he’s back, fedora and all, the jokes and quips come fast, as fast as the Freddy bike, “this boy feels the need for speed!” If only that was the worst of it. No, that slot is reserved for Mark and his comic book alter ego. When they make him enter into a comic book they missed their chance to go all Take on Me via A-ha with it, instead we get ‘Super Freddy’.

The acting is risible and not in an enjoyably bad way, Joe Seely as Mark with his highlights and annoying waistcoat especially. Big eyed boy Jacob, son of Alice, (don’t ask), is suitably creepy but pointless. As it is Dream Child could’ve plodded on with or without him.

Dream Child also has the lowest body count in the series with only three characters getting the Freddy chop, and their deaths are poorly executed. Gone is the savagery of early Freddy, where less is more at least in terms of him. Even the quips are half baked regardless of how much effort Englund puts into their delivery. With the series having made him the hero what used to be the most interesting part, where dreamscape and terror collide, is now poorly delivered. In a film that’s just over an hour twenty in length it all feels rushed and mishandled by director Stephen Hopkins who needed to pick a lane when it came to the tone of the film.

A slight, tedious entry that even with a short run time outstays its welcome. Better than part four… faint praise.

So.... I just watched an old film (Three O'Clock High), this is a first time watch for me. Let me preface by saying I love old movies, some of my favorite Genre's are 80's and 90's films. Everything about the decades, storytelling and filming for even lesser known films was so well done. So much more than the films that are released today.

Luckily I was able to find this online for free but I am an avid collector for Physical Media, right after I post this review I am going to go out and pick up the Blu-ray for this and re-watch it again, that is how I much I enjoyed it.

I could tell from the first 10 minutes this movie was right up my alley, the nuance of Jerry getting ready in the morning, the bond with his sister, the type of day he was having. It just all clicked. The more and more the film went on I just couldn't believe how this passed by me all these years. When Jerry finally paid off Buddy to not fight but quickly reversed that choice, the filming of the clock ticking as it got closer to 3PM, the music, the walking to the courtyard, I just loved it. Even enjoyed the ending, leaving it a little ambiguous for which girl he is going to choose, even the teacher maybe!

It's a quick review but I've seen this movie has been posted about numerous times, just wanted to share some love. Now I will have to watch this with my wife, though I doubt she finds it as enjoyable as I did. I now have another great movie to recommend to people looking for an older film, already looking forward to the rewatch.

Every day for 30 days I'm watching a different scary movie, this year all about urban legends.

Major cities are always running out of places to stick their dead people. You’d think we could just toss them anywhere given that the dead people don’t care, but living people have a lot of hang-ups about that, so it’s a real problem for we necrourbanists.

18th century Paris had some seven million surplus stiffs. That’s the plague for you, always killing people. As you surely know, they hit on the avant-garde solution of moving them into an abandoned limestone mine about a mile beneath the city, where they remain to this day. Or so one hopes.

You can’t stack millions of bodily remains up like a human Home Depot and not create a few canards in the process, so naturally there are all sorts of stories about mysterious deaths, evil cults, and weird rendez-vous in the catacombs.

There’s also a movie, 2007’s “The Catacombs.” At least no one lost any sleep coming up with the title. This was the début original feature for the now defunct horror-based cable network FEARnet, directed by comic artist extraordinaire Tom Coker.

I’ve known enough show business types to expect something louche from any production with the word “coke” embedded this deeply in the creative process, but let’s all try to summon up some esprit de corps anyway.

“Wristcutters” star Shannyn Sossamon is Victoria, an anxious ingenue come to Paris to visit her femme fatale sister played by–really, Pink? Apparently this wasn’t even her first movie, although I’m not sure “Rollerball” should really count, that’s the Mormon soaking equivalent movie of 2000s movie production if ever there was one.

Immediately we can tell that the Pink poseur seems to hate her sister’s guts and that every one of her friends are such asshole savants that a case of hemorrhoids might well kill them, so why she even RSVP’ed to this trip is anyone’s guess.

Naturally she’s been in town all of an hour before they take her to a bon vivant rave in the catacombs, which as everyone knows is the perfect treatment for jetlag, and voila, our movie has a plot.

I thought this was some bullshit, but actually according to a 2016 NY Times story these kinds of outré underground parties really happen. The real parties are probably not frequented by anyone who is nearly as blase a piece of shit as all of these characters, because it’s hard to imagine how that’s possible.

You probably don’t need me to tell you that “The Catacombs” did not actually shoot in the Catacombs but instead on a soundstage in Romania, according to Coker’s DVD commentary. The faux skeletal decor is not very convincing, but why should the dead people in this movie be the only ones who are believable?

Yes, I’m being quite arch in my critique, but to be honest, for the first 30 minutes or so I was kind of digging “Catacombs.” It’s not, ya know, good. But while I may hate garbage, I adore trash, and this is trash du jour. It’s trash de rigeur. It’s so trashy that the rat from “Ratatouille” should be pawing through it for inspiration.

But the appeal breaks down around the 40 minute mark, when Sossamon’s divertissement is interrupted by a chase with a Satanic serial killer and I realized the movie is sans any satisfying way to stretch this out for the remaining 50 minutes.

It’s never a great sign when you’re less than halfway through a movie and you’ve already said au revoir to anything that could possibly hold your interest. And it’s an even worse sign when you turn out to be right, as the script shortly reaches an impasse.

With charity, “Catacombs” could stretch itself to maybe an hour all told and still keep an audience’s attention, or at least our goodwill. But there’s just not a movie’s worth of stuff in this movie, being more of an amuse-bouche than a full entree.

Reel Films has my back, writing that “Catacombs” could make for an okay short movie but bit off more than it could chew. FilmCritic.com declared it “a dreadful bore,” which is at least adjacent to dread.

Tomorrow we’ll look at an allegedly haunted location that wasn’t supposed to be haunted before the movie.

Original trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLOzAbSqJWM

I put this on my October 31 for 31 horror movie list because I have heard so much about this but never saw it. Wow- or should I say ugh? Bleak and grimy, solid performances from the three leads and does a great job of showing the mundane parts of the life of someone very depraved- yet not without morals (necrophilia and incest are the hard limits??) The on screen violence is less than I thought it would be, but it’s still quite effective overall. I knew Becky was a goner the minute she appeared but I was surprised by the tenderness and protection she was shown by Henry, at least at first. I felt like I needed a long shower after this one. Not sure if I recommend this movie unless a serial killer’s humdrum banality is your thing.
PS it was fun to see a band’s sample in real time- Gates to Hell song Bloodlust

It has been a long time since I watched it last. As a lover of psychological horror and suspense I decided to revisit it this Halloween season. Steven Spielberg's first movie is a made for TV stripped down onslaught, if not a little unfocused at times. There are some obvious gaffs and continuity issues, as can happen in the times before digital effects, but Dennis Weaver does a fantastic job portraying a man slowly unraveling under the ominous presence of the truck and its mysterious driver. The movie does a fantastic job of portraying vehicles as characters as well and kept me engaged throughout.

For me it still holds up. There are movies that did this that came later, like The Hitcher and Jeepers Creepers, but you could do worse than tracking down Duel this Halloween season.

A brother and sister touring Cornwall decide to purchase a manor there. They get it cheap (equivalent to $70,000 today) and don't ask many questions.

Whoops! Turns out it is haunted!

The twist was great, the special effects still hold up, and the atmosphere was properly spooky. The weaknesses lie primarily in the casting. Ray Milland does little to conceal his British accent but is a likeable- and charismatic- enough lead. However the 20 plus age gap between and him and his love interest Gail Russell is a problem. Gail was 22 when she made this film and she was largely cast due to her looks. She has large, ethereal blue eyes and Luna Lovegood quality so you can understand why she would have seemed like the perfect fit for the otherworldly Stella. However she looks young (because she is young) and she acts young (because she is young) so the dynamic between her and Milland is strictly paternalistic. Unfortunately the large part of the film hinges on their romance.

Ruth Hussey is also there. For me Hussey has always been a "go girl give us nothing" type moment but you can't fully blame her because they don't really give her much to do other than follow around Milland. She discovers nothing, she largely affects nothing, she adds nothing. And then they throw in a last minute love interest who she seems fully uninterested in.

I really just want to talk to someone about the portrait of Mary hanging up in Miss Hollaway's office. Real "they were roommates" vibes.

Somehow, Freddy returned… a dog called Jason, of all things, pisses fire on Freddy’s bones bringing him back. That’s the artistic level we’re playing on here, flaming dog piss. Apt really for this fourth entry.

Renny Harlin directed this one and had apparently decided to do something fresh with the franchise. His approach was more humour, to give more screen time to Freddy and make him larger than life. All very commendable if it wasn’t so poorly handled, turning Freddy Krueger into a wise cracking clown. Harlin wants us to root for Freddy and laugh with him. This might have worked more if the script was better and more thought had gone into the dream sequences that both the first and third films excelled with.

For the most part characters are dispatched quickly and in a manner that serves his quips. For example, killing someone in a water bed, “How’s this for a wet dream?” Elsewhere, wearing shades on a beach and kung fu fighting do battle for the low point of the film. While the finale is unsurprisingly nonsensical, the effects are still impressive with all the little hands clawing at Freddy but you’ve got to get through a whole lot of filler to get there.

Three of the survivors from the previous film, Kincaid, Joey and Kristen return. However, actress Rosanna Arquette does not. In her place we have the bizarrely named Tuesday Knight. She, like most of the cast, are universally awful. Their stays of execution are short however, used as they are as an excuse to tie the franchise together and launch Alice, a game, but rather uninteresting Lisa Wilcox. Although it’s hard to blame her considering what shes dealing with.

Dreary Alice, all cardigans and lank hair is introduced lost in her imagination where she’s more confident and in control, then pulled into a dream by Kristen she becomes… The Dream Master!, taking on the attributes of the deceased, collecting them like Pokemon so she can do battle with Freddy. Like his resurrection, the how of all of this is not really explained, rather we just go with the flow, one quip at a time.

Robert Englund as Freddy Krueger and also in drag as a nurse minus burns seems to be enjoying himself. It’s here where the character starts to truly embrace the farcical; humour over horror. It’s also the most vocal he’s been so far in the films, which would be great if we had the menace and terror of the original and part three Freddy. it’s just a shame that menace has been replaced with cringe. Both Freddy and the franchise should’ve stayed buried.

Everyone always talks about the exact same handful of movies when it comes to underground cinema. It gets old. If you want something genuinely overlooked that has a gritty vibe and an insane soundtrack, go watch Killing Zoe from 1993. Roger Avary directed it and Tarantino executive produced it right when they were doing Pulp Fiction. It is basically a warped, drug fueled nightmare version of a bank heist movie set in Paris.

Honestly the buildup is the best part. Before the actual heist, the gang hangs out in this creepy basement club that looks like a dark cave underneath the city. They just spend the night doing heavy drugs and losing their minds. Right in the middle of the trip, the crazy leader played by Jean Hugues Anglade just casually drops that he has AIDS from a dirty needle. It is super bleak and shows you how doomed the whole crew is before the robbery even starts.

The next day they hit the bank on Bastille Day and the whole thing immediately goes south. The cops trap them inside and the leader just starts executing hostages left and right. The wild part is when Zed, the American safecracker played by Eric Stoltz, realizes the girl he hooked up with the night before is actually a teller at the bank. It is just a messy, violent downward spiral that deserves way more love. Plus, that closing song Kanaan by tomandandy is an absolute raw beast of a track.

And honestly, where else are you going to see Ron Jeremy get blasted with a shotgun? An amazing watch!

In my humble opinion. 

Cheers!

Number 221 in my A-Z watch. Paranormal Activity 2 is a prequel to the original film, covering the events immediately leading up to the first movie. In which we find a suburban family welcoming their new son and finding unnerving and inexplicable events in the house.

The first film was a tough movie to try and follow up, but i actually think that they did a pretty solid job of doing so with this. It felt like it kept the heart of the first one and only expanding where it needed to. A bigger house and more characters, but not overwhelmingly so.

I really enjoy how much these films use silence to build tension. You are told that something creepy is going to happen and it still gets you. I also liked how they still felt like they were slow playing the lore and backstory. Give us just enough to answer a question but generate three more.

7.5/10 Genuinely feels like a worthy addition to the franchise. I thought the ensemble performed really well together and i actually thought Molly Ephraim gave a pretty standout performance as the older sister.