Misery - 1990

 "Write the review," I thought just now.  Then immediately thought no.  I'll settle for a short one.

Misery is a movie I've always wanted to see, and a Stephen King book I've always wanted to read.  One of these days in the winter of North Idaho, I may read the book.  I haven't read King since my 20s.

James Caan and Kathy Bates star in this adaptation, Kathy Bates won an Oscar for the role of Annie, a avid fan of author James Caan as Paul Sheldon.  Paul Sheldon is a writer trying to break out of a rut, in the beginning he has killed off his most famous character and now he's finished his new book, and he leaves his winter stay in Colorado after the book is done.  He gets in an accident on the way home, only to be rescued and brought home by Annie.  But it turns out Annie is an unstable fanatic with a violent temper.

The thrills are huge in this movie, the pacing is good, and the tension is taught.  There's a lot to say about it, but I'm not really in the mood for details right now.  Blah.  My blog y'all.

I was surprised how good this is, and it is likely the best Stephen King adaptation.  Creepy, fast paced, and never slowed down by psychological bullshit as a lot of them are.  Annie is stern and strictly evil, but still written well enough to be believable.  I give it a 4.

Oxygen - 1999

 The best thing about video rental stores was picking up something, judging it completely by the cover, and renting it.  I know that online you can see a cover, read a synopsis.  Fuck you.  It isn't the same.  I frequent the library because it reminds me of video rental stores...which I sorely, sorely miss.

I picked up Oxygen and raised a skeptical eyebrow at the cover.  This movie looks dumb as sin.  It looks like a made for TV late night basic cable "thriller" and would only be remarkable because it was lucky enough to cast a pre-fame Adrien Brody.  So yeah, I guess I judged it as being most likely bad, and then last night I was in the mood for something maybe leaning towards bad, so I put it on.

In the beginning of Oxygen, we are following tough female detective Madeline in her day at work.  After a particularly rough day, she goes to a mystery house and has a drink with a bizarre man, with a suggestion of something creepy and sexual happening after.  She then gets roped into the newest case:  a high powered man's wife was kidnapped, she's locked in a coffin that's buried somewhere, and they probably only have an hour to solve the case before she runs out of oxygen.

There's a few things I'll say here, such as that this movie clearly is emulating precursors in the genre, The Silence of the Lambs, Seven, The Bone Collector, that type are all the skeletons that this movie is building from.  However, to dismiss it based on that would be a mistake.  Much like The Silence of the Lambs, this is a human story first and a thriller second.  Adrien Brody plays a completely unsympathetic psychopath, and Maura Tierney as the detective is layered and intricate.  The dialogue is good, the tension is good, and there's a lot of "oh shit" moments present in the film.

It's not like Oxygen is rewriting the book on a crime thriller or anything.  But for what it tries to do, it vastly succeeds.  Everything is pulling it's weight, and the acting especially elevates the whole movie.  Hey, casting a future Academy Award winner in the role of the bad guy?  It's a good idea.  Also, this movie pulls no punches.  It's not out to be an audience pleaser, and the end is dark and realistic.  

I don't know how to justify liking this as much as I did.  Perhaps it mainly stems from a vast underestimation of what the movie would be.  I expected some dumb late 90's cop movie with nu metal on the soundtrack and contrived "super-cool" style aspirations.  Through a certain lens, I suppose one could see that present here a bit.  But go in with no expectation, and be pleasantly surprised like I was.

One Million Years B.C. - 1966

 This time when I grabbed the DVD it said Ray Harryhausen right on the front, and I actively made the decision to keep my little unintentional marathon going.  I don't think I'd seen this before, either!

Raquel Welch infamously stars and wears a fur bikini in this mid-60's caveman feature, and it's iconic in the look it created.  Without even thinking I know I've seen this before:

She gets introduced later in the film actually, after our main character Tumak leaves his prehistoric human group in search of something different.  After Tumak leaves, he encounters another group of humans with blond hair, and Raquel Welch is one of their group.  He fights a dinosaur, wins, and eventually leads this group to a conflict with his old group.  That's basically the plot.

I'll briefly state that this movie was really cool and innovative with it's use of no dialogue, save for grunts and some character names, and we have an extremely brief narration telling us what's going on and then we're left in silence the rest of the film. 

The other main thrust of this plot is really the different encounters with creatures.  Harryhausen cleverly interweaves real lizards, crickets, spiders and other stuff alongside the claymation dinosaurs that harass the clan of people.   There's plenty of action sequences, and most of them actually look pretty good overall.  When they create claymation people it stands out the most, but it's still fun as fuck to watch.  

I've always had a soft spot for Harryhausen effects and the way they look.  I'm going to keep this going by seeing what else the library has that have his trademark effects.  I think this is a true classic film, good for hokey laughs as good as it is for a film buff.  4 stars.

Blair Witch - 2016

 "At this point," thought I after finishing Book of Shadows, "I might as well close the loop."

I had seen Blair Witch before, I think, sometime around when it was sort of new probably.  This would have been when I was newly single, breaking up with my wife in 2016 and I probably got pretty drunk and watched this alone in my apartment, pretending not to care about the new status that haunted me:  Single.

Single is a good way to start this review I guess, or at least I'll make it work.  How's this:  There is one single good Blair Witch movie.  Sigh.  This one starts out and the idea is fine enough.  First of all, we return to the found footage look from the original Blair Witch instead of the classic cinematography from Book of Shadows.  A girl is making a documentary for her senior class about her friend who's Heather Donahue's brother.  Heather Donohue was the girl from the first Blair Witch, and she's been missing.  He wants to go investigate, so boom, a group of four friends heads out to the same woods.

The idea is to have another batch of fresh idiot teens for ol' Blairy, and I like that.  The group picks up a tour leader couple, and so now the six of them go out to the woods.   They cross a river and one of them cuts her foot.  We know that's going to be bad.  But what's really bad is that once at the camp site, they go to sleep to have the trademark night noises bother them, and tensions among the four friends and the two others rise while the scares come up.

I will make a short list here about what the problems are:  1 we have too many allusions and follows in the footsteps in the first one - do your own thing!  I heard a great quote once in MST3K once: never put a better movie referenced in your shitty movie.  2 there is never a human moment, once, for anyone in this movie.  Hope you don't like any writing behind your cannon fodder.  3 having the series now use actual supernatural elements in it?  Why would that make it scarier, or better?  4 Having some of the humans be the bad guy at some points?  Again, does that make it scarier or better?

There's more, but those are the ones I think of right off.  There's still some chilling segments, but overall, this feels like just another horror movie.  Generic is another word for that I guess.  It's any movie set in the woods, and since found footage had taken off, it's also any found footage movie.  I will grant there's not a ton of wasted time with annoying shit like in some found footage movies, but still, this movie is garbage for the most part. 

Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 - 2000

 Marilyn Manson screams "We're disposable teens" as a helicopter shot flies above the woods.  We intercut with really fake looking blood and guts scenes and weird BDSM inspired "auteur" style shots and... wait, hold on THIS is the sequel to The Blair Witch Project?

I had an inclination that I am willing to test, that this was a pre-existing script they doctored to quickly rush a sequel to Blair Witch into production and capitalize on the craze.  I'm trying to load up Wikipedia to see.  The fact is that this feels like it has all jack shit to do with the original movie, and they threw together some vague "horror movie", sewed in some dialogue about a Blair Witch, and then jammed this into theaters as fast as possible.

Book of Shadows starts with a group of 20-somethings, a group of terrible actors and terrible characters who are capitalizing on the success of The Blair Witch Project movie, leading a tour group in Maryland of various Witch related sites.  They get wasted at a site, pass out, wake up with their site destroyed and video tapes left of the night happenings.  They go home, review the tapes, and discover sinister images that emerge, pointing to various different things.

The tone is horrible.  The everything is horrible?  That's a yes.  I don't know.  There's so much to say negative about this.  Let's try to say something positive.  Um...  it had nudity, once?  

Book of Shadows feels like they took Blair Witch, ran it through a "2000's era film" filter, appealing it towards goths and subcultures and everything else, and then shit it out.  The movie is bad, even by "2000's era film" standards.  I give it a zero.

The Blair Witch Project - 1999

 I truly do wish I remembered better what this was like when I first saw it.  I was 13 when The Blair Witch Project came out, and I remember hearing about it somewhat.  I knew the independent movie theater in town was playing it, I knew it was a big deal, and I didn't really understand why.  I likely saw it in 1999 or 2000 once it was a new release, but I don't remember.

The huge deal this movie presented was because like many things, it was simply the first.  They were the first to do the true found footage thing, and they really presented it as a true authentic "found" footage.  The directors hung posters about the missing actors, they listed them as missing on IMDb, they made a huge campaign over the "reality" of this movie.  So much so that I wonder how it was even possible or legal - such a thing could NOT happen these days.

They were partially in the right place at the right time.  With the infancy of the internet, Blair Witch was certainly helped by their obfuscation of the truth and of their intentions.  People tried to crack this hidden code, they latched onto the mystery presented therein and took to trying to decipher it themselves.  The only other thing I remember that tried this was Cloverfield, with mixed results.  We'd been burned by Blair Witch, the next thing was not also going to pull the wool over our eyes.

However, like I said, right place right time, and people honestly DIDN'T KNOW this was a movie somewhat.  They literally thought this might be real, a venerable psuedo-snuff film which was now free to watch by anyone, and which, also around the turn of the century, felt like a really world changing thing.  

I was aware that they could not put a real thing like this into theaters, even if they wanted to, and yes tender reader, even at the age of 13 did I know this.  But that didn't mean I wasn't interested.  I watched it, and I remember what, exactly...?

Heather, Mike, and Josh are using one color camera and one black and white camera to film a school project.  They are interviewing people about the Blair Witch, a local legend involving seven dead children in a Maryland town.  They head out to the woods to find a cemetery for the kids, only to be increasingly bothered by strange noises at night.  Tensions rise as they experience getting lost, getting no sleep, and getting hungry as what was supposed to be a 1 night trip stretches out into 2, 3, 4 etc.  The sounds at night increase and soon enough this will have to lead to something.

The incredible thing about this movie which really sticks out in a rewatch and the now available behind the scenes information is truly how much of a experiment this movie was.  It was a extreme experiment by the directors and creators in actually scaring their actors, in giving them just enough information or just enough to know what might happen, but not enough so that there is always some reality to what's happening.  It's the perfect marriage between reality TV and scripted TV, something which again right place right time, was not so common that it is trite and lifeless.  

I highly recommend the episode of Unspooled that talks about this film.  I want to say more, but I'll leave it at this:  Certain movies feel to me like a bridge built between the art that is film and what is generally accepted as a movie.  I try to explain this to the people that dislike 2001 A Space Odyssey.  2001 is film, it is using film as a medium to create art.  Most movies are not doing that.  They are making entertainment.  Their goal is not the same.  I feel like similar to 2001, Blair Witch is using film in a different way - it is using it to create something besides a movie.  It's got to be one of the most unique things in that way, something which elevates it to an extremely short list of films which are truly unique for one way or another.  That alone makes it perhaps...a five star film.

Ivan the Terrible - 1944

 Sergei Eisenstein is a well known Russian director, writer and producer who was a progenitor to cinema in general, not just Russian.  He is fairly unknown in the US and cinema doesn't name drop him as much as arguably they should, given his influence.

Ivan the Terrible was a huge deal.  Funded for production by Joseph Stalin, he felt a kinship with Ivan the Terrible and was invested in the making of this movie.  Part 1 went over very well, but part 2 hit problems when Stalin felt he didn't like the depiction of Ivan the Terrible.  It was delayed, and thus the plan of having a part 3 never came to fruition.  

Ivan the Terrible is a biopic of the infamous Russian leader.  A hair over 3 hours, it depicts mostly the way in which Ivan comes to power, with a bit of flashback to his childhood and a bit of his life as a leader.  It features boatloads of historic figures, and is loosely realistic, of course being funded by Stalin some things are skewed to play out in a certain way.  I wonder if these types of movies are the beginning of the producer or the production company stepping in and taking control of the film?  The original idea of a "Production Hell"?

The first thing one will notice about this film is the compelling style, and the amazing light and camera work it has.  Being just a few years after Citizen Kane, it's awesome to see another movie of the same era having some of the same cool style, although obviously way less ambitious and stylized than Kane, Ivan the Terrible has a whole cinematic language of it's own.  The play of light and shadow, the symbolism present in the film, the scene of a crowd bowing down before him - there is a lot of visual poetry in this movie as well.

The movie is a bit hard to follow, for me at least.  I found a similarity with Andrei Rublev here, of it being historical in concept with a lot of players involved, and me being unaware, I forgot who people were or why they were important.  There's this guy and that guy and this woman and that religious figure, and I don't fucking know!  I don't actually know Russian history, and when a scene happens, unless it's painfully obvious, I may miss the subtext of the importance of the scene.  

The theatrical nature of this movie, the big overstated performances help a little bit in establishing what is happening, but overall you may find yourself lost at times.  It's not impossible to follow though, and the rich style and the huge quality of what you are seeing and understanding more than makes up for it.  

Ivan the Terrible is included in some of the worst movies, which I truly do not understand.  It's also on the list of 1001 movies to see before you die, which I do understand.  It's gorgeous, huge, and surprisingly modern in it's entertainment value.  You won't be shocked to the core most likely, but you also won't regret watching this true classic.

The Lady Vanishes - 1938

 I've been doing a Hitchcock watch, starting with some of the more known movies, and working my way through the back catalogue of early films as well.  My ultimate goal?  To watch every Alfred Hitchcock movie.  Naturally.

The Lady Vanishes is one of the older ones, 1938 being a very grainy black and white film in look.  The film stars Michael Redgrave and Margaret Lockwood in a bizarre meetcute on a train.  Bizarre because it is overshadowed and defined by Margaret Lockwood losing track of an elderly woman she'd just met, May Whitty as Miss Froy.  

The plot is that simple:  Miss Froy disappears about the 45 minute mark, and for a long time it's just these two characters looking for her.  There's been a few characters we've met up till now, and they're given reasons for not wanting to be involved in this controversial missing person case.  The clues turn up, pointing to various things and various suspects along the way, and the convolution deepens.  It's all very mysterious and very Hitchcock.

I've seen about 10 Hitchcock movies now, not including them in the blog here.  I felt like writing, ya dig.  But the thing is, I really like these.  There's a real clear obvious reason why Hitch is so well regarded.  Well paced, well acted, attention to detail, and really interesting.  They're all deeply engaging, and mystery is one of my favorite genres anyhow, all that aside.  So, give these a watch if you're into the idea. 4 stars.

The Other - 1972

 I picked up The Other, it looked horror/thriller, was from the 70s, and starred Star Trek's Diana Muldaur. Need I have more reasons to watch it?

Twins Niles and Holland are slightly off. Holland is a bad boy, causing problems and is basically evil. Niles is good and has some mental power to link with other people. Unfolding slowly is a story of ambiguous happenings, slow burn psychological scares, and bizarre imagery. 

The previous description makes it sound really good though... And I suppose if you're in the right mood it is, but spoiler warning I was not in the right mood. I fucking struggled to stay awake during The Other. It is SO SLOW!! Geeeeeeez, I'm a slow movie master, and shit was I challenged. 

Eventually some people are injured and die and it's implied it might have been the kids. Eventually there's a reveal about Holland. Eventually you will wonder where the story is going to go. But there's so many other scenes of nothing happening and unrelated nothingness, you'll probably be tuned out much as I was at this point. 

It's definitely not a bad movie at all, even shot creatively and with great child actors. I feel like I should have loved this, like it's required for me to have liked this movie. It checks all the boxes, even creates new boxes and checks those! How can I not like this?! I'm mad at myself. 

But all that being said, it was so slow that I still can't give it more than 3 stars.

First Men in the Moon - 1964

 I had an unintentional Ray Harryhausen double feature here, since I just watched It Came From Beneath the Sea.  I didn't know he did effects for this film when I grabbed it at the library.

The First Men on the Moon is HG Wells, fresh off the success of The Time Machine and War of the Worlds.  In this one, we have astronauts landing on the moon and discovering that in fact there is a small British flag and a note written, saying that people have been there before.  They track down the person who wrote it, now an older man.  This man tells a strange story we see unfold, a story of a brilliant scientist, a trip to the moon, and the creatures they found there.

First Men is a very ambitious sci fi film, way ahead of it's time.  It's a strange story, going all over the place, and giving a whole lot of time to it's few characters as well.  We have the inventor and eccentric scientist Cavor, who creates a liquid which repels gravity, and enlists broke Bedford and his love interest Kate in a trip to the moon.  Once there, they use underwater diving suits to explore the moon, eventually finding underground tunnels and strange bug-like aliens that inhabit them.

The aliens and the effects are first and foremost awesome.  I mean, the octopus in It Came From Beneath the Sea looked spectacular, and I thought it was likely because of the black and white effects, but this is in color and looks even better.  There is also a LOT more effects use in this, the entire last 50 or so minutes is all effect shots, and the actors are interacting with these things in like every shot.  It's really something to marvel at.  

The actors are all good, considering this fact especially, and I guess the biggest "thing" to state is that for some reason, they decided to make there be a comedic slant to this movie, having Cavor be comic relief at times.  It really, really doesn't work.  Kate and Bedford have a romance angle which is also quite clumsy, but luckily it isn't focused on that much with so much else going on.  

The whole interaction in the tunnels of the moon is very compelling, but oh my god is it slow sometimes.  This movie, really fucking slow.  Snail's pace at times.  There's so much standing around talking about things, and slow downs in the plot.  The stuff with the aliens is all really cool and fun to watch.  They are creepy as hell, and given that we never learn their true motivation, they're an excellent antagonist.

This movie could have used a little editing for the modern sense, but it is a product of it's time.  I think probably 20 minutes of the hour 45 could have been cut, but it's still good.  I give it 4 stars, it's a great sci fi classic.

Santa Sangre - 1989

I had always heard of El Topo as being a weird ass visionary cult film, but I was introduced to Alexandro Jodorowsky through The Holy Mountain .  I really loved it, but I've only seen it twice, and I worry about what a rewatch would do.  I liked El Topo less, and I haven't seen anything else by him.

I once started Santa Sangre on a free streaming service, and memory serves I didn't even get 10 minutes in.  I thought "oh...it's more of the same," and I turned it off.  And it is, I'm not calling him a one trick pony, I'm just saying you really have to be in the mood for this, and it's no fault of anyone's if they are not.

The mood is as follows:  Patient, introspective, open-minded, and curious.  You have to have a lot of time on your hands, no phone, and you have to be willing to do some of the work for Jodorowsky.  Not that he in any way falls short of anything really, but just that there's so much here, in what I would describe as his least dense film I've seen, there is still so much to unpack and sift through.

In the beginning of the film, we meet Fenix, a mentally unstable man who is naked perched in a tree.  Fenix's story gets unfolded in flashbacks of him as a child as well as however long ago, the actions that led him to the institute.  He has a mother who was part of a religious movement which was decimated by the government.  They were worshipping a woman with no arms, and soon enough Fenix's mother's arms are cut off.  He is possessed by her to act as her arms, performing weird arts and doing everything for her that her arms would.  She starts demanding that he kill people soon enough.

Visionary is always a understatement place to begin with Jodorowski's work.  This is still the least cluttered and the least insane of his work I've seen, but man is it out there.  The movie is packed with weird ass stuff, whether it's usual cast of deformed or different looking people, bizarre sexuality, or religious imagery.  Santa Sangre was not written by him, so that may be why it's not as nutty of a fruitcake, but the writers knew what they wanted when they sought him out to direct.

Santa Sangre is hailed by Empire magazine and other critics as a great film, it's artistic and unique, it's obvious of the tremendous talent behind it.  But...  do I like it?  I don't know.  There's a lot of elements I like.  I don't even mind the length or the slow pacing.  I feel like it's just somehow not quite my thing.  I give it a solid 3.5 though.

Kiss Daddy Goodnight - 1988

 I'm back to buying VHS randomly at the stores. I got a working VCR after my old one quit, so now I can watch this shit again. 

Uma Thurman makes her screen debut in this erotic thriller/ crime film about a girl who is robbing dudes once she gets them to their houses with promises of sex. Eventually things get more complicated, and yea that's whatever basically the plot. 

This movie was directed by an amateur and it shows. It's slow, it's boring, it's so simple that it's laughable, and altogether hugely forgettable. It's not like the worst movie ever it's more that basically nothing happens and plot movements roll by just the same as the endless scenes of nothing. 

Good acting saves it from complete Z grade.  Uma Thurman sells it, and Steve Buscemi is also in this for 2 minutes. There's a special place for this, and maybe in the 80s this seemed cool for a sec, but for me, it's a really boring, bad movie. 1.5 stars. 

It Came from Beneath the Sea - 1955

 I have not gotten into much 50's monster movies as of late, so when I saw this at the library I picked it up.  It's a good morning movie especially - I do love my movies in the morning.

It Came has an opening scene with some missing ships, and slowly we see a few phantom arms reaching up and out of the ocean. It's a giant octopus, and Commander Pete Matthews is teamed up with Professor Lesley Joyce, he being the type to not suspect a professor could be a woman, she the type that evidently falls for misogyny.  They've got to anticipate the octopus, figure out how to stop it, and run when it comes to San Francisco.

Effects by Ray Harryhausen as well as black and white photography help this movie along, elevate it from forgettable 50's monster schlock.  Also, admittedly, is the fact it's San Francisco instead of New York or anywhere else.  It is cool to see my city of 10 years back in the 50's, and see familiar sights like the Ferry Building and stuff in this movie.

There's surprisingly little to say about this otherwise.  The pacing is averagely slow, and the characters are thin as can be.  It really jumps into the stratosphere in the effect department though, and when the creature comes to SF, worms it's way onto the Golden Gate Bridge and Fort Mason area, that's a lot of fun.  Eventually they shoot a torpedo at it, but before that we've discovered that like all these monsters, this one too was caused by....THE ATOMIC BOMB.

Snake Eyes - 1998

 I'll settle for just writing a mini review of Snake Eyes, mostly because I have been writing reviews of other Brian De Palma movies.  This movie though, probably would not normally get a review.

Nicolas Cage and Gary Sinise star in Snake Eyes, a late 90's thriller that checks all the boxes.  Big stars, check, dramatic characters, check, overreaching plot, check, predictable, check.  The opening shot is well known, being a lot one take shot following Cage around as he interacts with people, as he makes bets on a fight, and there is obviously some huge difficulties as it revolves around a boxing match in a huge arena with hundreds of people there.  

This shot ends with an assassination of a politician, a few suspicious people, and Gary Sinise taking out the killer.  Now it is up to Cage, Sinise, and the cops to handle the scene, find out what happened, and track down the suspicious persons.

As I said, the plot is somewhat predictable about who is involved and how and why.  Cage is a bit of a psychotic, broke down, deal-accepting detective and if you think he wants redemption through this big case, well, you're right.  There's a girl thrown in for him, there's a few action scenes, it's what you expect.

It doesn't amount to that much, but it's still a fine action film with a conspiracy/thriller vibe.  I'd say it's great for dads to watch with their 14 year old kid, hell that kid would have a blast.  It's a popcorn movie.  I give it a 3.

The Mechanic - 1972

 Wow, well I guessed later in the 70's and it must be because I'm unfamiliar with Bronson, and also cause this movie felt progressive.

Charles Bronson was a huge star, and action film regular by this point.  I haven't seen a lot of movies with him, except the original Death Wish and Death Wish 2, as well as previously on this blog with Cold Sweat.  The Mechanic is a character piece, a dramatic action film, remade recently with everyone's favorite actor Jason Statham.

In the beginning of The Mechanic, we witness Bronson using a methodical and intelligent way to take out a target.  He is given some back story and then he kills a new target.  He teams up with the son of his recent target, and begins training him in the ways of mechanics, also known as hitmen.  Soon enough though, Bronson himself has a hit put on him, and we have to watch him dance.

The coolest part of this movie, and I'm sure something that did not make Statham's remake is the slow, relatively silent drama given to Bronson's character.  It's also staggering because this movie is slow and there's not a lot of depth added to the people, yet it never feels dull, underwritten, or awkward.  There's just a confident mastery to the way a lot of 70's movies are paced.  And yes, it is slow, and yes sometimes it's boring.  Who knows, maybe I like boring.

The Mechanic isn't going to redefine your life or anything, but it's really good, it's a classic 70s character action piece.  Definitely more human and deep than I'd have guessed.  I'd watch another movie like this any day.

A*P*E - 1976

In 1976, Dino de Laurentis produced his remake of King Kong. Jeff Bridges starred, it was a whole thing. The same year, this Korean American co-production was released to capitalize. 

APE is a joke. You know it's bad when the title stands for Attacking Primate monstEr...with the fucking E capitalized? Really guys? 

 This feels very close to some of the Z grade Godzilla rip offs coming out in Japan in the 60s and 70s. The ape looks ridiculous in a fun way, and the scenes involving it are so bad it's great, with terrible miniatures, bad scale mistakes, and shitty costumes. There is basically hardly ever any perspective shot showing how big he is, and when there is, it's a joke. 

 As APE goes on, you'll swear you're halfway through then realize you're 20 minutes in. It's slow as ape shit. Nothing much happens ever, what little does is stolen from King Kong, and the movie will tempt you to turn it off multiple times. Ugh.

Tusk - 2014

I think I vaguely remember hearing about Kevin Smith directing a horror movie where a guy turned into a walrus when this came out. It'd been a few years since he'd done anything I liked so I didn't care much. Never thought I'd see it.

Tusk was out around a time that horror was pretty bad. I mean, horror goes through long long moments of being pretty awful very regularly. I believe this was only released in some theaters and wasn't much of a success, so I dunno what's with that and all, but Matt is here and wanted to see it, so we rented it.

Tusk stars Justin Long and Haley Joel Osment as podcast stars investigating stories. Justin Long travels to Canada to interview someone and the guy has died so he isn't sure what to do until he finds a bathroom letter written by someone looking to tell the stories he has. When Long gets there, he discovers a old man with many stories, one of which is about a walrus, and as it turns out, the old man wants to turn Long into a walrus.

Yes, this is as odd as it sounds. And yes, it is going for comedy. No, the comedy is not funny. However! The horror elements do work. They're well done and they're not exactly going for realism so in that way it works.

Tusk is not for everyone and in fact probably not for most people. It's deeply uneven, and when Johnny Depp hits the screen as an eccentric French weirdo, it is really hard to watch. The fun is in the horror for me, with some minor laughs and some decent effects. I don't think it's indicative of anything bigger, but Smith may have had better luck with horror than comedy.

Halloween - 1978

There's so much to say about Halloween. First of all, my personal history. Well, I don't really know if I saw this before middle school, or possibly even late middle school / early high school. I didn't have any cool older cousins or anything that showed me horror movies as a kid. Neither of my parents watch horror either, from what I could tell then and what I can tell now. So, far as my memory goes, it was my sister and I, her getting some weird hankering for horror movies, and us watching these and the Fridays. She was always Michael Meyers over Jason, and I will say, I am too.

Halloween really cemented together the slasher as a subgenre of horror in general. I know there's a ton of debate about precursors to this movie, but really this took all of them and put them all in one place, including what I think was the biggest choice; an unknown and never revealed killer with no motive, no lines, and no sympathy. Michael Meyers truly is evil incarnate in this movie, both in dialogue by Dr. Loomis, and in action as we watch.

I barely need to touch on the plot, but one thing that I thought of early on is that it's funny how it's never stated in any way that Michael causes his escape from the institution he was in. Early on, they're driving to the institution and happen upon a bunch of patients, wandering around in the dark, and we never really find out wtf happened there. Plot from there is that Meyers heads home to Haddonfield and stalks a bunch of teenagers including Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis).

Another thing I thought was funny on this rewatch was 1: to play a game where you decide what was Michael and what was not. There are constant "ominous signs" of Michael's presense, whether it be a sound or a figure or whatever. It's clear that in the idea of the movie, some of these are Michael and some of them...well, it wouldn't make much sense if it were him. Make it a drinking game.

Another thing I noticed (all of these come from love, please, trust me, this is my fave horror slasher movie) is 2: in the end, Laurie walks around her neighborhood in a light open neck shirt, buttons all undone to look pretty. It is late October in Illinois, it could be below freezing! She should certainly be looking for a coat, or at minimum buttoning that up!

Donald Pleasance wasn't in this movie as much as memory serves, so his screen time is really good. He's actually very good in this, and again I think his overacting and his insanity is more a trope of the later installments, instead of this one.

Halloween is virtually my favorite horror movie, or it's in the rotating top five. It's my favorite slasher for sure, and the music is so great. The acting is good, the kills are good, and the tension is good. Halloween is one of the classics, and it needs to be watched by everyone.

Edge of the Axe - 1988

Okay, well IMDb and Wikipedia are not in agreement again, and I usually take Wiki's side, but in this case I will take IMDb's because it makes my guess at the year correct.

I am of course going to watch Halloween related films all month, movies that are horror based and may get reviews or not. I'm also waffling with the choice of what to watch ON Halloween, but I may decide to go classic and watch the original Halloween, on VHS. Stick with the classics, right?

Edge of the Axe was a Spain and American co-production low budget horror entry made in the late 80s with intention and some basics. It stars no one but the actors don't suck, it has some atmosphere but the script is trash, and it has a surprisingly cool looking villain with sort of a papier-mache mask.

Edge of the Axe starts with the usual sort of scenario, a woodsy town somewhere is terrorized by a man with an axe, as shown in the opening kill scene where a woman is axed while going through a car wash(?) A local sorta nerdy dumbass kid Gerald is one of our unlikely stars, he's trying to get with this girl in town and we follow them as their relationship grows. I'm having a real problem remembering the plot, but it don't matter: there's a guy, he has an axe, and there's a small town that basically has only one cop. You know how this is going to go.

Except you don't. The unexpected part of this are the parts that make it so bad it's good, and also the parts that are just plain ol' good. The script is so dumb but it's hilarious, the characters are stupid but not self aware, the computer sub-plot is hilarious, and the movie doesn't focus on the killer or the horror elements a lot, so we're just left with these good parts. Those are so much fun to watch, and the movie moves quickly enough and isn't rank amateur so there's nothing to bring it down. I had a fucking great time! This is a movie I'd watch again, and again it made me really think of which movies got sequels and which didn't. This was too late 80's to have a horror franchise spring from it, but it's really solid!

Edge of the Axe was too late to the party and I think got mixed in with all the others coming out at this time, but this is why you dig and sift through movies for years: to find ones that you missed. Hidden gems. This is one of them. Give it a watch if you're a slasher afficionado.

April Fools Day - 1986

Well folks I've been in the Halloween mood for a slasher, and scanning through the titles online I found April Fools Day. Why not huh? It's been quite a long time.

April Fools Day was written by Friday the 13th worker Frank Mancuso Jr, and it is "your average mid 80's slasher". The big gimmick and indeed the big spoiler can be found in the title, and being one that always found the "pranks" in horror movies rather annoying, I have to admit that it was fine in this movie.

In the beginning, we meet group of friends Muffy, Nikki, Kit, Arch, Chaz...the list goes on. They are your average college kids escaping to a woods filled holiday, and they're playing pranks on each other nonstop as they pull into the rural escape. They're basically bland, and you'll wonder what the heck Biff from Back to Future was doing in this movie, and wish he was as fun as he was in that movie.

That aside, soon enough it seems as if someone is after the kids, and they're being killed off and the bodies are stacking up. We soon enough follow final girl Nikki as she and Rob are among the last left, and things are finally shaping into a direction to the killer. Then, as I said, the spoiler is revealed that it was all an elaborate prank, and we're left wondering what this movie was.

Now, I'm not dumping on it. This movie, first and foremost, is totally fine. The acting is good, the music is fine, the deaths are plentiful and they're decent. The tension is sort of gone, and the whole direction is predictable, but overall, it's like I said in the beginning, it is "your average 80's slasher". Barely distinguishable. It's there, and you may watch it a few days before Halloween, and you may have a decent time doing so, and that may be totally cool.

The Untouchables - 1987

I'm now marathoning the "known" portion of Brian DePalma films, with Scarface and now The Untouchables. I watched and did not review Mission Impossible as well, so I'm really deep into his popular hits.

The Untouchables is one of his most referenced films, being the film that contains the iconic baby carriage rolling down steps, as well as DeNiro as Al Capone saying "I want him dead! I want his family dead! I want his house burned to the ground!"

Kevin Costner stars as a treasury agent who is put in charge of a new division charged with capturing Al Capone. He enlists beat cop Sean Connery, rookie Andy Garcia, and accountant Charles Martin Smith (who we just saw in the tremendous film Never Cry Wolf) to help him in this endeavor, and in the meantime DeNiro as Al Capone uses thugs Billy Drago and others to carry out his evil plans and strike back once the fight comes to blows.

The film feels like all of the gangster movies that have come before and after, not in a unoriginal or generic way, but in the way of standing out, being good. This is right up there with the best gangster type films, if that is your thing. It's brutal, bloody, taught, and risky.

There's not a ton of character things going on but it's got enough and it's riding high on us rooting for the good guys cause they're good and frowning at the bad guys cause they're bad. I am not sure if I mean it as a critique or as an observation when I say it felt quite patriotic. It felt like it was coming from a place of "look at this amazing cop beat the bad guy through both brains and brawn".

When all is said and done, this is not a movie for me, but I'm glad to have seen it. I don't have many DePalma movies left, but I'll continue to watch them, and then one day it'll be over. At that point I'll eventually rewatch things like Body Double or even Raising Cain (I'll try to redeem it in my eyes), but I doubt I'd rewatch this one. That said, 4 stars.

The Omega Man - 1971

I've always wanted to see this movie, even before it was remade in my theater-going lifetime as I Am Legend. I knew it starred Charlton Heston and I knew it was based on Richard Matheson, and those two things kept me interested.

Charlton Heston stars, as said, in this bizarre 1971 last man on Earth story. I believe this was the second adaptation after The Last Man on Earth with Vincent Price. Either way, this is one of the earlier instances of the idea of following the last man on Earth, and it is I believe the most faithful adaptation of the book.

The movie begins with Charlton Heston driving through an abandoned New York, and as he gets home it is getting dark. He is attacked by a strange mob of robed figures wearing sunglasses, and they are revealed to be alterned humans. They are at war with Heston, and he uses a automatic rifle to keep them at bay while they shoot arrows and chuck spears at him. They have bizarre cultish beliefs, actions, and dialogue, and we get a strange sense of their absurdity early on. As things progress, we learn about Heston and we watch these further conflicts as well as see him meet with other real humans.

This movie is thematically and textually weird. First of all, it feels very influenced by the time from which it came. The group of night dwellers acts straight up like some drugged out cult group, very influenced by Manson and those type of recent headlines. Then, the black woman Heston falls for later is written as such a harlem queen it reads as straight up blaxsploitation, which feels a bit weird. Her nudity in the film is also strange, as it would otherwise contain no objectionable content whatsoever. It's got a strange atmosphere going, that's for sure.

I feel like I barely said anything about this, but I want to wrap it up. The movie moves quickly and it has some thrills and scares, but the dialogue and the tones it imparts are sometimes off. Heston does a great job and there is certainly enough to give it a watch if you haven't before. And it's in the spirit of Halloween, so there.

Vivarium - 2019

I had a feeling I didn't like when I contemplated writing this review. I had a feeling that I'd been writing more and more reviews of recent movies, as in incredibly recent, like post 2000. But I can't really find a ton a data to backup that feeling, so I'm writing this review anyways.

I went into Vivarium expecting a horror film, basically, and then from the tone I thought maybe it was instead a weird offbeat comedy. The truth is it's sort of both, as well as a thriller, mystery, and compelling drama. The original feeling it illicits is the reason behind my review here, and the inability to pin this movie down or truly compare it with anything is again one of the reasons why I would say it deserves mention. My prevalence of post-2000 reviews aside.

Vivarium stars Jesse Eisenberg and Imogen Poots. Is Imogen Poots the worst name imaginable? If the answer is no, it's high on the list for contendership. Either way, early on they are talked into checking out a home for sale in a community of identical awful color green homes. They highly dislike the neighborhood and the salesman, who's giving very odd vibes and who acts in an irregular fashion. When the couple come out of the house they realize the salesman and his car are gone, and when they try to leave the neighborhood there is no way out. They try what they can to escape as the days pass by, and eventually a box containing a baby boy shows up at their front door with the eerie message "Raise him and you will be let go".

The odd incapturable tone of this is really unique and despite the fact that this would be a fools errand and be irrelevant aside, I tried desperately to think of what movie's it had reminded me of. I thought of none. The best I could do would be to think of the independently made movies that similarly felt like nothing else that exists, movies like Under the Skin, Frank, and maybe The Lobster. Vivarium is in no way thematically or even tangentially related, except that they all stand out as unique, thoughtful experiments.

If movies like this ever stop being made, I'll lose interest in film. This is why I watch movies man. That may be the biggest sell of all time, but it's true. Weird, offbeat, highly original ideas like this (not even including the execution, which was perfect) are what keeps me in theaters, getting stuff at libraries, and keeps me engaged. I'll be watching whatever this director does in the future for sure.

Kwaidan - 1965

As I've mentioned before, I love a anthology. The opportunity to experience multiple stories, with some far fetched and some more realistic, and the constant change keeps one more interested. I love movies n all, but sometimes I'll readily admit I look at something and it says 2 hours, 3 hours, etc, and I just cannot fathom getting through something that long. A 30 minute mini movie I can do though!

Kwaidan is a anthology of Japanese ghost stories, scary stories to tell in the dark, Japan style. It is based on a book of collected stories, a book which my library does not have (no surprise there). Kwaidan consists of 4 segments, and since I think it is relevant, let me copy in my original idea behind what is in an anthology.

Kwaidan is going to break my anthology rules because most of these stories are weird, at least from my perspective. So, read that idea break down or don't. Whatever.

Segment one: The Black Hair. A man leaves his good wife in order to climb the social ladder. His second marriage doesn't work out and he misses his ex, so he runs away to be with her, but only encounters something strange when he returns to her.
This one is so classically Japanese. The presence of honor and the presence of morality is the focus here, and in the end it's actually a quite feminist idea. The pacing works the best of the stories I would say to, perhaps because of the simplicity.

Segment two: The Woman of the Snow. Two loggers are out on a night where the'yre overtaken by a snowstorm. One of the man witnesses a phantom white woman of the snow kill his partner. He is told he can live if he never tells this story to anyone. Is he up for the challenge?
This is the one I remembered the most. This one is the best, I would say. It has a really good idea and could easily be fleshed out to an entire movie. It's also the most positive and upbeat, so hey, party.

Segment three: Hoichi the Earless. A blind musician is targeted by a mystery man to play for a mystery group very late at night.
This one is WAY too long. This is a good idea (I guess) but it takes over an hour of this movies 2.5 hour running time, and it feels like it. It has so many long scenes of a guy playing his biwa that you might even end up fast forwarding unless you really like the music. It's also very obvious from early on what is going to happen, not helped by the title, and you'll feel everything telegraphed from far away.

Segment four: In a Cup of Tea. A samurai guarding a royal house sees a reflection of a stranger in a cup of tea. He cannot get rid of the reflection and so he drinks the tea. Soon enough he meets the owner of the reflection, claiming that they must now duel.
This one is a good concept again, and could have been a full length movie. The problem with this segment really is that it focuses too much on the fighting instead of the character stuff. What, did they feel like they needed to pump up the pace?

Kwaidan as a whole is thoroughly enjoyable in the short segments. I wish Hoichi was also 30ish minutes instead of an hour 15. If I were to watch it again, I'd probably skip that whole part. It's the weakest segment, length aside. Overall though, this is really good stuff with great atmosphere and cool, creepy, original ideas. Nothing like this in Western culture anthologies anyways. I give it 4 stars. (I might give it 5 without Hoichi...)

The Magnetic Monster - 1953

The classic 50's movie The Magnetic Monster was on Amazonwhen I looked up "classic" as the key word. This is why the whole Amazon versus Netflix thing is a no brainer for me. Netflix has no classic films, like at all. It seems their catalogue leaves out basically anything pre 1990 really. They focus instead on their stupid original content.

The Magnetic Monster has it all. Black and white, slow moving plot, vague scientist types talking about things while they wear lab coats and fret continually about things. You see, there is a hardware store where strange occurences are happening, including all the clocks stopping and a magnetic field forming. Turns out that some scientists have created a new element, and this highly radioactive dangerous element is now threatening everyone. The thing is emitting dangerous energy and it appears to be growing. They devise several thoughts about what this means, and they fight a ticking clock with the element.

This is an example of a talky movie with a barely existent visual threat, but with it still working. We are given a little side story with our stereotype of a main character, Jeffrey and his wife Connie, who are pregnant and he's worried that she isn't eating enough. This is the type of B plot this movie gets, seriously. It's a laugh of a flick, short and sweet, classic in the utmost sense.

I give it a 3.5. it's not going to change your life, but it is a true map to the type of film coming out in this time, no rule breaking, no exceptions here.

Halloween Kills - 2021

In 2018 Halloween the original movie from 1978 got a sequel, simply titled Halloween. I saw it in theaters twice and I fuckin loved it. It erased all the stupid sequels and the thorn cult and everything else that had soiled the name and it got back to Michael and Laurie. The sequels were announced after the success of Halloween, we soon after knew we were going to get Halloween Kills and the next one, Halloween Ends. Covid delayed Halloween Kills, but now it came out in 2021.

Jamie Lee Curtis returns... should I start with that? I bet her total screen time is less than ten minutes. Okay, well she is back and she is in this sequel. As is Anthony Michael Hall as Tommy from the first film. Michael Myers is out and we pick up right after the sequences in Halloween, the 2018 film.

What is the plot here, I don't really know. I just saw the movie this night. Basically, Myers is back and killing people here and there. There's definitely an up in body count, there's an up in gore, and there's an up in screen presence, and those are all the signs of a usual bad sequel right? In fact, this in many ways felt like the usual bad sequel directed by someone else, written by someone else, made by someone else. Was this made by someone else? It would seem so.

Tension is gone, character is gone, drama is gone, horror is gone. Is this even a horror movie? It's a movie, that's for sure. Maybe IMDB should list this as drama first, then horror. Who knows huh? Anthony Michael Hall leads a cult like group who despite not knowing who Myers is decides to revolt against him. Strode's daughter is there, doing things. Other people die, including a faggot couple who are horribly written. This movie fucking sucked.

The Prestige - 2006

I'm glad that of all the new directors that are popular, two of my favorites are also both quite prolific. Christopher Nolan and Yorgos Lanthimos are both quite prolific, with another Nolan movie coming out next year and same with Lanthimos. It's refreshing not to have to wait 4, 5, 10 years between movies.

With Nolan, I was in since the year 2000 when Memento came out. I saw it based on the poster and loved it, and never have gone back since. I have a few directors who I have basically said, I'll see whatever they come out with. I'm in. It's at least okay, if not way way better than that.

The Prestige was a movie I didn't hear about when it came out, however. I'll admit that I missed this one, and saw it a few years after in reflection. I liked it, it was fine, and I never saw it after. But I recently rewatched Dunkirk, and now I have seen this again, and I might even rewatch Interstellar. The Batman movies are a maybe. A lot of these I haven't seen in like 10 years man, it's worth it!

The Prestige stars Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale in a tale of two magicians working together. Until that is, Christian Bale drunkenly ties up one of the stage women and she dies because he might have tied the wrong knot. That starts a feud between the two of them, and they keep trying to outdo each other as well as screw up each other's act. Woven into this is Michael Caine as a elder magician and role model, as well as Nikola Tesla as an inventor who can perhaps lend a trick for these men to use in their show.

Using Nolan's signature time jumps and cross cutting, we have a surprisingly character driven story with some genuine funny and dark moments. Both men are enigmatic and secretive, more similar than they'd like to admit, and using truly ingenious tactics they stay ahead of the game. We start with Christian Bale getting framed for the murder of Hugh Jackman and then we explore the layered history with them both, and it's truly interesting.

The Prestige seems to have vanished behind Nolan's other more popular, successful or more intellectual work. This movie is simply good in a time when we demand things be great. However, it is really good, and it is very entertaining. Everything works in this film, and there's not a missed opportunity here at all. I'll give it a 4.

Hider in the House - 1991

I have been randomly adding movies to my Amazon queue. Hence adding a early 90s Gary Busey movie to my list.

If you're like me, you see a movie called Hider in the House with Gary Busey and its from the 90s, you think this is gonna be bad. Hammed out, low budget, ham-fisted, clumsy, low brow. It's going to be dumb n fun Saturday night entertainment.

Here's the first surprise: Hider in the House also stars Michael McKean and Mimi Rogers, as well as Bruce Glover. I gave an audible "huh!" at those credits.

The title implies the plot, which is true in this case. We see the details come into focus- Busey is a kid who was heavily abused and killed his parents in a house fire. He gets discharged from his psychiatrist and moves into the attic of a house which is then purchased by McKean and Rogers. They move in and Busey imagines himself as a fellow member, and begins to integrate himself in their lives.

So how does this succeed? The answer is in multiple ways. Number one, as I said, I underestimated it. Also, the character bits are really good. Then there's Busey turning in a good performance, there's a few good twists, and there's a growing body count. Mimi Rogers is really good in it, and the atmosphere is tense.

I thoroughly enjoyed what is essentially a cheap short Busey starring thriller. It surprised me.

Two Evil Eyes - 1990

Dario Argento and George Romero are mosters of horror and defining icons for their contributions to the genre. In this Grindhouse-esque idea, they both direct an hour long segment of this two hour anthology.

Segment one stars Adrienne Barbeau as Jessica, who is married to an aging, dying Valdemor. Valdemor is being put under hypnosis by Barbeau's secret boyfriend doctor Hoffman. Under hypnosis, they're changing Valdemor's will to give Barbeau money and possessions, and the plan is working, as we see her going to the bank and extracting loads of cash. Pretty soon, however, Valdemor dies while hypnotized, and they have to cover up the death. Since he was hypnotized and "between worlds" his soul cannot escape to heaven or whatever, so now they can talk to him from the grave, and he is warning them of others he sees in the middle space.

Segment two stars Harvey Keitel as a photographer and publisher, living with his girlfriend Annabel. She finds a black cat and brings it home, and immediately the cat and Keitel don't get along. This relationship escalates as eventually Keitel takes pictures of the cat as he tortures it in front of a backdrop, and then apparently uses those photographs to publish a book? A book of tortured cat pictures? Anywho, soon enough Keitel murders the girl and arouses suspicion, and things escape his control.

These are both ok. They're both based on writings by Edgar Allen Poe, so we actually have three horror icons at work here. The pacing can be slow or ok, and the atmosphere especially in segment one is pretty cool at times. There's sort of too many ideas present in segment two, including an homage to Poe's The Pit and the Pendulum.

I can't dump on it too much, but let's be fair and say this idea doesn't exactly work. It feels a bit too slow for one, and at 1990 it's not especially ahead of it's time. It feels like a cool idea that didn't quite achieve what it wanted to. It's fine as a soft intro into October, a month where I routinely watch a lot of horror films. This is a average 3, a movie which won't completely bore but also won't blow you away. Good effects in both too, but so scant it's disappointing.

Fear and Desire / Killer's Kiss - 1953/1955

I heard a while ago about Fear and Desire coming onto the internet free of charge. Stanley Kubrick's WWII drama that he purportedly disowned. Now I've seen it.

Fear and Desire is a character drama centered on a group of soldiers stuck 6 miles deep into enemy lines. They try to negotiate a route out while contending with obstacles in their way. It is just over an hour and based on their trauma and destruction.

The acting in it is pretty atrocious and the only Kubrick moments come in the cinematography. When one of the soldiers snaps and shoots a woman he immediately jumps up to an 11 on the unhinged-ometer, and the climactic boat scene later is uneven because we're not sure what's happening. By far the best moment is when our troupe attacks enemies in a house eating stew, that's a tense and creepy 10 minutes. The rest is meh and boring.

Killer's Kiss is another character based drama. We follow down and dirty boxer Davey as he relays a story of what happened to him. He has a thing for the girl next door and gets involved in her life. She is the target of low-life Vincent, who is abusing her. Davey is mixed up in this, so soon enough he is a target himself.

Killer's Kiss a film noir, and way ahead of it's time. It is dark, mysterious, and desperate, with a attitude of nihilism and dread. The climactic fight scene in the end is true insanity, a faceoff in a mannequin factory. That scene in itself is so different from a lot of typical 50s dramas, it's tense and quickly paced, with a huge fight and a lot of action. The studio demanded a happy ending, but we have to think without that, this movie would be a real downer. The great cinematography and editing in the movie is a highlight, all done by Kubrick, and the film certainly feels like it has a unique and clear voice.

A while ago I watched his film The Killer, and this trilogy of early Kubrick is interesting in retrospect. They're all showing a master coming of age and defining his craft, and each one has their moment to shine. The moments just get bigger and bigger as time passes, so thankful for that. Fear and Desire is a 1.5 star with the worst acting in a Kubrick film, and Killer's Kiss is a genuine 4 star excellent film noir.

Dead of Winter - 1987

Roddy MacDowall never achieved a high level of fame apart from his roles in the Planet of the Apes series of films. He became a B and C and Z movie actor, TV actor, and died with only Planet as his major claim.

Hence we have 1987, 10ish years after the most sequels of the series, and Roddy is in this subsubpar 80s made for TV feeling "thriller". Also starring Mary Steenburgen and Jan Rubes.

Mary plays three roles. First she's a woman murdered in a car. Then, the main role, an actress who meets Roddy for the lead role in the film. She's taken to a doctor's house where it turns out the doctor and Roddy as his assistant have nefarious plans for her. Then she also plays the neighbor, a woman who turns out to have a connection to these two.

Well, it's a dumb plot, and its a dumb movie. Seriously, I saw the cast and I said yes before thinking about how bad this could be. I'm an optimist I guess. But this is bad. Its telegraphed, predictable, it's been done before and again, and it has nothing to differentiate it from the others.

If you have a brain you'll guess the plot twists before they happen like I did, you'll know how it'll end like I did, and you'll marvel that there isn't a hidden B story or reason beyond those apparent.

When it comes down to it, it's a plot of major convenience, hinging on just one critical thing, and when you think about it, the story doesn't even work. Ugh. But I guess I was still mildly entertained. Its a one.

Wishmaster - 1997

Wes Craven was a king in the 90s. He'd established Nightmare on Elm Street and soon enough would create Scream, but in the meantime why not produce this Nightmare-lite horror flick?

This is a flick too. It's a B movie through and through, starring horror icons in mostly cameos but shoving Andrew Divoff as its actual star, the titular Wishmaster.

Early on, a drunk dockworker spills his drink and drops a box on some dude, breaking a statue open and revealing a red ruby containing the Djinn. The Djinn comes out and he's the classic evil genie, interpreting all wishes in evil ways. Our plucky heroine has to eventually deal with said force.

Wishmaster has passable effects, passable acting, etc. It's all fine really, I truly don't have much to say about this one. Some good kills and lots of them elevates it, like the cameos. It's a fine B grade average 2.5 starrer.

The Fog - 1980

There's a weird dynamic bizarre quality about John Carpenter films. I feel like when he has a thing he leans into, like the atmosphere or the horror or the pacing, the movie turns out good. But when he doesn't lean into one of those, the movie is not as good.

I don't know exactly how to quantify this problem, because even when his movies aren't great, they're not that bad. Back when I reviewed Vampires, I had the same problem. If someone else had directed it, I might give it more credit. But it was shallow, undeveloped, and sort of reeked as if no one cared enough to settle on exactly what it was supposed to be. The Fog is similar.

We open with a old man telling a scary story around a campfire. Great beginning. Something about lepers coming in fog to kill people who stole their gold. Then it's sort of like we cut to that story. A small Northern California beach town, which was in reality Point Reyes area, has a single jazz radio station run by Adrienne Barbeau. Jamie Lee Curtis meets Dan Atkins on the road and they ride into town just as a fog arrives.  The fog has said lepers in it, who kill random people on a search for their gold, which turns out was stolen ages ago by a former priest.

Except we don't know most of that until later. What we do know is that pirate looking things want to kill six people, reason unknown, and the town is terrified of them. Which works, and let me say straight up: the atmosphere in this movie fucking works. Great original John Carpenter score of course, good acting, good effects.

But the bad, I mean, it's a long list. Two things occur to me to mention before I get into the bad: number one, this is clearly going for a retro, 70's style horror feel, and I think that's very intentional. Carpenter was a forefather to 80s horror but was directing in the 70s, and this feels like a traditional slow-burn 70s thriller. Number two: it is all in the beginning; this is a campfire story, told to campers in the oldschool way which would NATURALLY have plotholes. Urban legends are full of plotholes, the how and why and "what are the rules" questions are virtually endless for all the hook-hands, ghosts, demons, virgins, and mythical figures in history.

This movie is not here to answer any of those questions, and though it does a good job of covering all this with character and tone, the characters other than Adrienne Barbeau have nothing to do, aren't explored, and don't matter. Jamie Lee Curtis and Dan Atkins are incredibly shallow sexpots with no payoff, the priest is an alcoholic with a fart for a story arc, and nothing else really matters. The deaths are ok, I guess, and the fog is creepy as shit, but it would have been nice if anything was linked to the "story" i.e. the stolen gold, which is thrown in as a last act quick "get out" for why this happened instead of being weaved organically to the storyline.

It's not as bad as all that though. Like I said, I believe honestly in the listed reasons for why this might be written weird, and it still achieves atmosphere and thrills. It's lke a 2.5, I'd say.

Memories of Murder - 2003

Midway through Bong Joon-ho's second film I realized I'd seen it before. He burst onto the scene in a big way right after this with his film The Host in 2006, bringing him more attention in the mainstream Western audience.

However, one should not think that it was only The Host and later of course Parasite that showed promise in this director. Bong Joon-ho spins a in-depth, personal, funny, and intimate story in Memories of Murder, a trait of his which we'd see repeated in his humane and layered films.

Memories of Murder is loosely based on Korea's first real serial killer, a string of murders which happened from 1986-1991. Leading the investigation is frequent Joon-ho collaborator Kang-ho Song as a tough but slacker cop, a in-over-his-head small town cop who discovers the first body. The little police station he works for is inbalanced, especially after a specialist from Seoul is sent in to help on the case. They work as more bodies show up, as false leads arise, and as actual clues eventually show their head.

Memories blends together good atmosphere, plenty of comic moments, and at it's center a dark mystery with macabre and voilent tone. These things are all very well balanced over the 2+ hour running time, and with great perfomances and a well written, concise script, you can see this crew is going somewhere. See Parasite, please, and if you like it, give this cool murder mystery a shot!

Highlander 2: The Quickening - 1991

The Highlander was a somewhat unsuccessful, but easily huge cult movie with Sean Connery and Christopher Lambert and an original song by Queen. Princes of the Universe indeed.

Christopher Lambert returns in this one, and in the far away distant year of 2026 the earth has a solar radiation shield and eternal storms, and Christopher Lambert has some weird croaky thin voice, and ninjas with eyepieces are after him, and... What the fuck happened to this series?

The plot is murky at best, but basically its the idea of the Highlander, which is that immortals are fighting on Earth, and they all have to compete until only one of them is left. Lambert as Connor MacLeod is up against Michael Ironside, a long hair having, scene stealing villain, Katana. MacLeod summons his OG Sean Connery as Ramirez, and the rest of the movie is, well, actually quite a lot.

Cause FUCK is this thing long. 2 hours feels like 10 as we get a lot of dialogue, a lot of pointless scenes, and we wait forever to get information as to what happened, where we are, and what will happen next. I mean what was their idea here? To expand the world I guess, but there is a lot of scenes here where the information is both unnecessary AND uninteresting.

When we come down to the last confrontation, MacLeod and Katana face off in their immortal duel, and the fight is over pretty quick. Virginia Madsen is also there as a love interest, and she's good in this, but the movie is way too cluttered. Probably a 1-er.