The Petrified Forest - 1936

 FUCK! I guessed one year off. 

I'm going back to Bogie. We just don't have actors like him anymore. To jump into that,  I'd say this: this role is almost expressly written to go unnoticed. He barely has any dialogue, and almost all he does is de-escalate the situation. He is dry and sarcastic,  a real dick and killjoy. But he stands out from the postcard Hollywood of everything else in this movie,  practically popping in like someone from now being all like eh... this shits kinda lame and wack, doncha think? Bogie annihilates the role,  no wonder he got noticed.

Based on a play, we get one of my fave things: minimalism. We got one set and mostly one room,  actors talking and yes, it's very entertaining. 

British lad Alan is wandering Arizona when he finds a hole in the wall restaurant where Gabby works but has bigger dreams. They hit it off and fall in love immediately. Meanwhile villain Duke and his boys are escaped convicts and radio broadcasts tell of their trip through Arizona. The criminals meet up with the star crossed lovers and the other shady characters in this nowhere town. 

Funny,  witty, but also simultaneously cliche beyond all words,  this is something to behold. There's meditations on fate,  love,  destiny, dreams,  reality, and everything in between. There's racial commentary. There's gramps, who's just thrilled to be there and wants to watch the bloodshed. It's all over the place. 

I had seen it before but not reviewed it,  and with rewatch it holds up. I love this movie. 

Nymphomaniac - 2013

 This is in fact the entire Nymphomaniac, parts 1 and 2, just didn't note it in the title. 

I have elevated Lars Von Trier to one of the most human directors in my head recently. After Melancholia, The House that Jack Built,  and Antichrist, I jumped into Nymphomaniac while I digested a weed edible. No I did not see all those movies in one day. 

Nymphomaniac actually got a theatrical release,  a bit,  and probably chopped to all hell here in the US.  It's on Hulu currently in the unrated (read: graphic AF) directors cut,  which is what I watched. 

The plot is very simple so let's just say it. A man finds a beat up woman in the street and brings her home. Her name is Joe and she begins to recount to him her life story as a self diagnosed Nymphomaniac. Her story begins "I first discovered my cunt at age three" and if you don't like that turn it off,  cuz that's what you're in for. 

The fascinating thing about this movie is first of all the novelty even in a porn obsessed culture to find fascination with the sexual acts,  but also the underlying humanity,  emotion,  and connection or lack thereof. Joe is a complicated,  vengeful,  dynamic and thoroughly understandable person with wants and needs, cruelties and loves.  If anyone thinks this was a great way to see nudity and went as a teenager,  I wonder wtf they thought when they walked out.

Part one is Joe's promiscuous youth,  loss of virginity and anal virginity,  getting into the real world,  and falling in love. Part two is her attempt at normalcy,  discovering submission, and a lesbian relationship which crumbles.  Both of these parts are told to asexual intellectual Stellan Skarsgård, who occasionally comments or asks questions but mainly acts as an audience surrogate. 

Shia LaBeouf is her love interest, Mia Goth is her childhood friend,  Willem Dafoe is in a small role,  and otherwise it seems to have very real people,  and depict very real sexuality. This is not a sexy movie,  though,  I would argue. I think there is a deliberate choice to have the actresses not seem very pleased and blown away by their orgasm and to not seem like sexpots as we might expect in the traditional way. They act like an alcoholic might with a beer,  he drinks it without noticing,  without desperation or joy. Detuned, in a pattern,  unaware. This movie is not lascivious. It is merely about a process,  one which it views as akin to any other process. 

This is one which will sit with you for a long time if you get it. The ending is very important and quite unexpected,  and I wasn't sure I liked it. But I've been sitting with Part Two and digesting it,  and overall there's just a LOT to talk about with this movie. 

This movie is why film is important. This is art, this is designed to make you think,  this is a challenge and it is about something we don't talk about enough, the human Condition. Or to put it another way,  Soul. 

I loved it and I give it 5 stars. 

Copycat - 1995

 The year is 1995. Se7en comes out and changes thriller cop films and ushers in a new Era of extremist grungy 90s aesthetic. But what ELSE came out in 95?

Copycat is by all definitions "some thriller movie" that most people don't acknowledge and which was certainly glossed over that year in favor of Se7en, which beat it to release,  but according to Wikipedia Copycat had some success and good reviews. 

Sigourney Weaver,  post Alien 3, stars as an agoraphobic psychologist or something,  and she helped stopped killer Cullum. Now a new serial killer is active in San Francisco and once again Weaver is tapped by cops Holly Hunter and Dermot Mulroney to help. Soon enough Weaver discovers their serial killer is copying well known killers from history,  and that he is somehow connected to Cullum, who she stopped years ago. Thus, the new killer may be after her. 

It's a solid cast,  and the dynamics of Weaver and Hunter together are nice. I guess originally Hunter was to be a male and love interest for Weaver,  glad they lost that angle. The new serial killer Foley is the weakest link,  and this definitely leans into the uber genius/ mega stylist way that all killers in modern media are depicted.

It's fine! It's solid. It's forgettable. It made me wonder,  though,  which completely forgotten nothing movie would be funniest to get a sequel now. The movie would have to be in no way well known, not very successful but not a complete bomb. No impact but large enough in scale to where it actually was released. I guess I'm saying Copycat here is a good candidate. I would go see Copycat 2: Copykill. Everyone is still alive. Cmon Hollywood. 

I'll give this 3.5 stars

The Stunt Man - 1980

 Wow.  I was way off on my guess of the year this one came out.  Feels a lot more 70s to me.

The Stunt Man is a relatively well known cult type film, one a bit off the general radar but still well within the overall realm of these kinda things.  We got Steve Railsback and Peter O'Toole in a genre which is kinda gone, one which I sorta forgot about...  This is the "whoa dude Hollywood is so wacky and crazy and there's drugs and girls and you'll make millions or it'll destroy you...wow dude" 

What was the last one of these types of movies?  Immediately I think of Boogie Nights and sort of Almost Famous.  Movies wherein its kinda a dramatic comedy, I guess, and its about the disenfranchisement of someone discovering their dream is not what they thought, or its a riotous romp about the insanity and audacity therein.  Once Upon a Time in Hollywood does not count, because it's about the Manson family stuff more.

The Stunt Man starts with a criminal, Railsback, escaping the police and bumping into a film crew.  He gets tapped to perform stunts by the directer, O'Toole, who takes an instant liking to him.  Railsback is promised to be protected and make money if he signs on to perform stunts in the movie, and soon he discovers success and happiness in this new niche group.  But things, naturally, are not all they seem.

I could easily see why this is in the cult realm, and I can easily see why people might really like it.  It has wackiness, silliness, and incredible stunts.  Its all real, and it shows some of the golden age of Hollywood insanity which truly must've been fun and fucking fucked up to be a part of at one point.  

It moves a bit slow and it really plays up the drama in the last part, which also highlights some of Railsback's relative inexperience as a film actor.  I hate to say it, but he just is not right for this part, or maybe its the writing I don't know.  Sometimes in the end its kinda amateurish.  But it's also bogged down by weird and convoluted writing and its sorta a who knows general feeling.  So, it doesn't stick the landing and that makes me give it about a 3.5.

By the way....  My guess for the year was 1974.  This is straight from Wikipedia: " The script was first written in 1970 when the rights were first sold. The film was shot in 1977 with post-production conducted in 1979. The picture had trouble getting distributed until 20th Century Fox picked it up and released it in 1980."  I fucking knew it wasn't 1980.

Saw IV / Saw V - 2007/ 2008

 I'm going dual review because this series is not giving me a lot to say, and in fact I barely remember what happened in these films despite having just seen them recetnly.

Saw IV is really a black hole in my memory.  I believe it is the one where good cop Rigg is supposed to save a couple guys who are attached in a warehouse somewhere.  One guy has a chain around his neck, but if he dies, he electrocutes Costas Mandylor who is next to him.  There's basically no really good traps in this film, and the end is a confusing series of reveals that basically go to show that Costas is now the new killer.

Saw V has the Mandy-man back as he puts a group of five people to a test where one of them keep dying in each new room they go to, and in the meantime... hell I dunno, other traps happen I guess.  Except again, they're not especially memorable nor good.  

A huge problem is that they picked a lot of actors in these movies which look similar and have the same vibe.  Sorta cop looking brown haired men with similar levels of acting and forgettable names litter the screen, and half the time I'm like...who is that?  Then the editing style and the clusterfuck reveals in these movies just make me sit there thinking, "what? who?"

But basically they also elevate Jigsaw to a super-genius level degree, which I guess he was already, but he also could read the future to damn perfect accuracy.  They made a huge mistake obviously killing off Jigsaw too early, and these movies go to some lengths to have a reason for a flashback or a backstory or whatever, while they play a clumsy game of pin-the-franchise-on-the-new-guy, which they tried with Amanda and now Hoffman.  

These are the slogs in the series, lets hope that 6 gets better.  I give both of these about a 1.5

Conquest - 1982

 I started this movie on Freevee with no idea what it was, and was pleasantly surprised by the opening and the directorial credit, Lucio Fulci.  I haven't seen all that much from him, but I'm a big fan so far.

Almost immediately I was googling "best Lucio Fulci movies" and reading lists and reviews from bigger film nerds than me, and I was doing it partially because of the thought, if this isn't one of his best I'm going to be surprised.  From the list I was on, Conquest was rated at number 2.  

Conquest is a sword and sandal adventure movie with a fantasy element.  But more than that, it's an atmosphereic romp full of awesomeness.  You get introduced to what this is going to be early on when the you notice every woman in this is either topless or naked, there's incredible fake decapitated heads, and awesome spaghetti sauce used as blood in a head splitting scene.  

There's bad movies, good movies, so bad it's good, etc.  This is just plain good, in fact great.  The main character is a somewhat unexplained mystical dude with a magic bow and arrow who is pursued by the topless, masked evil villainess Ocron.  She sends leagues of baddies out, including super cool looking spider dudes and bear dudes.  There's this other good guys Ilias who helps our hero out, and there's lots of violence blood and nudity along the way.

The overused phrase "fever dream" is not enough to descirbe this movie.  This is a fever dream that took acid.  The movie is all sorts of nonsense, helped by a foggy, blurry shooting style and apparently more fog IN the camera.  Conquest may have the unique filming location of Fogland, Italy.  All this gives it loads of fun and loads of atmosphere, which combined with good pacing and a plot so simple you never even think about it, these things make the movie fun.

I kept thinking because of how fun it is exactly that this movie would be a great one to put on at a party, silent in the background.  No one would really notice it, but if they did for some reason they might legitimately start watching it, confused out of their fucking minds, ignoring the party and the option of getting laid just cuz this is so enrapturing.

I give it 5 stars.

Teenage Exorcist - 1991

" Teenage exorcist, teenage exorcist.  He's got the devil on the run, oh yeah..."

We have all encountered better poster than the movie, better trailer than the movie, better clips than the movie, how about a better intro song than the movie?  Thats either sinking to a new low or raising to a new high.  

Teenage Exorcist does peak early with this fucking rockin intro song.  Prime late 80s early 90s hair metal feeling jam.  Then the movie is a crummy would be comedy teen thing which, I will admit early, might be sorta fun with some friends and drinks, but for solo sober viewing on a Tuesday morning, well it doesn't quite fit the bill too much.

Teenage Exorcist itself is associated with Fred Olen Ray, one of the many Z-grade film guys that makes things that exclusively sell on double sided DVDs in valu-paks for $3.99.  He wrote this garbage, and by that I mean he sat down and wrote a few sentences. This is likely about what he wrote:

Its a comedy about teenage possession and it involves exorcism.  Some girl is possessed, her sister and sister's husband come over, comedy ensues, and eventually they get a priest who accidentally orders pizza instead of calling for a the priest.  Pizza guy arrives and promptly the movie randomly focuses on him?

Eddie Deezen is the name attached to this, fresh off his Spielberg appearance in 1941.  He is supposed to be the most funny of all the other funny things, instead nothing is funny, and boy does this movie drag.  I paused it many times to see how much of this shit was left.  Its not violent, there's very little nudity, its not funny, and it consists mostly of just the same thing again and again and again.  They try the exorcism, it doesn't work.  They try something else, it doesn't work..  repeat.

With some friends, its maybe a 2.5 at best, for solo Tuesday its a one.

Legion of Iron - 1990

 "Ain't you heard?  Superman's black." 

This was the line that made me want to write a review of this during the watching of it rather than wait til the end.  I don't need to finish this in order to give a review, we've all seen these kinda things before.  

This is some prime 90's stuff that you'll find as a gem if you dig through some Charles Band, some Troma, and some of those other halfwit distribution companies.   This stuff is low budget sleazy dirtbag shit, which is exactly what you're looking for, what you want, need, and love.

There's a lot of rape but no nudity in this flick which was surely shot in some warehouse somewhere.  Main character Billy is a football star who is kidnapped along with his girlfriend and taken to an underground gladiator type event which supposedly makes millions of dollars - they must have a bad accountant because none of this supposed wealth is ever visible.  Poor actors who were likely never in anything else cavort around, peacocking and strutting like it ain't no thang.  Then we watch as fights happen and an uprising begins amongst the gladiators, and that's the paper thin plot.

According to IMDb the director has an upcoming project, which will be released soon.  I'll bet anyone $1000 that it never comes out.

Saw III - 2006

 How did I nail the year of this Saw entry?  How?  I'm supposed to be bad at years after 2000.

Saw is keepin on going guys, and I'm like 4 days late writing this review, as I saw this I think last Friday or Saturday.  Saw II I think I saw in theaters, and I think by this time in the franchise I was not going to see them in the theater anymore.  In fact, none of this felt familiar and it's possible I have not seen this movie before.

Saw III, about 45 minutes in, feels like a series of connected vignettes more than a proper Movie movie.  I'm not sure why this is because the plot is very present throughout the movie, and all the vignettes are tied quite closely, but yeah, I don't know exactly but it did really feel that way.

The third entry here focuses and a cancer ridden, dying Jigsaw character who has Amanda still working for him, and they kidnap unhappy wife Lynn to keep Jigsaw alive while this guy Jeff goes through a series of rooms containing the people that had something to do with his sons death.  We also have sort of a prequel in this movie, as it contains flashbacks to the setup of the first Saw.  Perhaps all these things are why it feels like a few vignettes.

Saw 3 is perhaps the begin of a decline here, as the only great actor is relegated to bed duty (literally) and the other stories are okay enough but not that gripping or compelling.  I mean, I kinda couldn't care less about a lot of this shit.  The traps are pretty good, I suppose the one I'll remember the best is a guy who is drowning in liquified rotting pigs.  Interesting?

I'll give it a solid 2.  It's ok.

Saw II - 2005

 Man, its weird to think that Saw is officially 20 years old this year!  Both seems like too long and too short given it has ten sequels.  For sure always a fast moving franchise.

Is Saw the series with the most legitimate sequels?  I don't think any of this series was ever direct to DVD, streaming, etc.  It has always retained theatrical release.  I guess you can say the same about Friday and Nightmare though, Halloween.  The older series.  Okay, never mind, wtf dude shut up.

Everyone was talkin Saw in 2004.  It was the biggest theatrical event since Sixth Sense or something in a lot of ways, in that it felt like it was a breakthrough scary movie that was revolutionizing horror.  The original is a classic, and I'll watch it if I do indeed watch all these Saw movies, but we'll see man.  I remember the middle Costas Mandylore bits being a drag and a half.  Well, I just did Hellraiser though so I should be ok.

Saw II, I remembered one thing.  The pit of hypodermic needles in the room.  That's it.  I remembered it was a group of people I guess, and I think I vaguely remembered one of the guys went crazy and started killing people.  Is this movie basically a remake of Cube, by the way?  Think about it.

Saw is a big hit, obviously we need to rush on a sequel, original director passes, so new director Darren Lynn Bousman and the writer of the first one Leigh Whannell tackle this one.  Some large building somewhere, like 8 or so people wake up to find themselves trapped with Jigsaw traps everywhere, one of the people is the son of crooked cop Donnie Wahlberg who finds Jigsaw himself and tries to save his son.  

Saw II I remember being kinda disappointed in when I saw it initially, and 19 years later, ya know, its like fine.  There's little to say about it.  The nail mask is cool, the needle pit is cool, nothing else really stands out.  They also take a significant dive into B-movie actors here, declining from the Carey Elwes and Danny Glover in the original.  These guys do their job fine enough though, and they're mostly wallpaper parts anyways.  

It won't hurt you, but isn't that kinda what it's trying to do?  Also, the flashy in your face style of editing here hasn't aged well, and I'm glad we've left it far in the past.

Hellraiser - 2022

 And thus, the cycle comes to an end.  Sounds like an apt Pinhead quote, since I don't have a real one I'll just make one up right?

Hellraiser had fallen completely off the radar of all somewhat respectable folks by this time.  Lingering in straight-to-DVD hell since Hellraiser 4, the majority of the series was now something a fan would have to actively seek out should they be interested.  Budgets had been slashed, main characters killed off off-screen in horrible detective movie sequels, actors had left, there was basically no choice left but to reboot the series.  It comes out straight to Hulu, which is the equivalent of straight to DVD now.  Step up?

The big news on the release of this newest installment was that Pinhead was now female.  It is so odd and stupid what people choose to complain about sometimes.  There is a lot to say about this movie, and specifically what doesn't work with it, but female Pinhead is not high on the list.  I mean, the woman who plays her has zero charisma, barely any lines, and doesn't get to do anything cool in the movie, how about complain about that instead?

The main character looks like a boy in a wig first of all, and a wig that's like "80's hair metal band" themed.  I could not take her seriously, and she's not a great actor either, so start there.  And then, add in a 2 hour movie where it ponders around and there's a LOT of nothing happening in this movie.  

The plot is basically thin to nonexistent - a young group of friends gets ahold of the puzzle box somehow, and play around with it, they almost specifically do not open it in the traditional way (?) but cenobites come anyways, and some of the people are killed off, and yeah, I dunno.  That's all. 

I paused this minimally 8 times to see how much was left.  It would feel like a gigantic amount of time went by, then I'd pause again, and only like 6 minutes had gone by.  This thing oozes by SLOW dude.  Pacing is definitely a problem, and the other problem is basically nothing happens in this fucking movie.  I couldn't even tell you how it ended, and I basically watched it less than 48 hours ago.  It officially does not retain any kind of memory.

I wish there had been some redeeming factors, but this is firmly in the bottow of the franchise for me, which goes more or less, from worst to best:

Inferno aka Hellraiser 5

Judgment aka Hellraiser 10

Hellraiser 2022 aka Hellraiser 11

Hellseeker aka Hellraiser 6

Revelations aka Hellraiser 9

Deader aka Hellraiser 7

Hellworld aka Hellraiser 8

Hellraiser 3

Hellbound aka Hellraiser 2

Bloodline aka Hellraiser 4

Hellraiser

This one gets like 1.5 or something.