10/31/16 - Peeping Tom (1960)

I don't often feel like an old man, but Peeping Tom made me feel that way. It's from 1960, which is only 20 years old than me - it couldn't even drink when I was born! (Okay, it's British - so it could drink thanks to reasonable liquor laws. I mean, movies can't drink, but you get what I mean.) But then realizing it's 56 years old... that's getting into "so old it's irrelevant territory" for some people. Which means I'm approaching "so old it's irrelevant territory." Oh well.

So it's no surprise that Peeping Tom feels dated. It's certainly no children's film, but it's hard to believe that it was critically despised upon its release and considered (nearly universally) to be vile, depraved, and without value. It essentially halted director Mike Powell's UK career for about 10 years until people got over it. Peeping Tom feels pretty tame by today's standards, but that's not to say that it doesn't work as an unnerving portrait of a mild-mannered serial killer.

10/30/16 - Summer of Blood (2014)

Summer of Blood works pretty well as a comedy, and not much at all as a horror film. It's never really even *trying* to be a horror film, so I don't hold that against it. What did bother me a little is that it uses vampirism as a means of just having something happen  (our hero turns about 30-35 minutes in). Summer of Blood doesn't use it to say anything noteworthy or do anything interesting. It just kind of happens because the movie needs a hook - and vampires are as good as any, yeah?

10/29/16 - 31 (2016)

The other day I was trying to think of my *favorite* movie. And I don't think I can honestly answer that question. I know which movies I have seen the most (The Room, Jurassic Park) and which have to made it into the multiple watch category, but "favorite" just leaves too much room for interpretation. So I tried to think of qualities that I liked in movies/filmmakers, and one thing that kept coming up is commitment to an idea or tone. Films like Detention or Scott Pilgrim, that have a unique take/vibe and uncompromisingly stick to it, for good or bad. While I hate it in terms of politics, I like the "you're either with us or against us" concept in genre filmmaking.

And shortly thereafter I watched Rob Zombie's 31. Zombie very obviously has a unique style, and I'd say that 31 revels in that style more than any of his other films. He commits to a grimy, crusty, disgusting vibe and just goes with it. So while I admire that commitment, I have to say that just about everything else in 31 is really bad. I guess you need something like a comprehensible story, or competently shot action, or decent acting - otherwise you've just got some cool production stills and not much else.

10/28/16 - Apparition (2010)

Astute viewers will notice that the first words you see on screen in Apparition are about 10 seconds in. They are on the t-shirt of our main character / hero. He's a ghost hunter working on a case, helping a family rid their house of a Banshee, or some such nonsense. His shirt says, in big letters:

Big Daddy's ASS BURN Hot Sauce

Stay classy, dude. Was your Big Johnson shirt in the wash? So ASS BURN kind of sets the tone for Apparition. Also, it's the only film I can recall seeing where a character's butt crack is showing pretty clearly in a shot. It's in an intense scene (or what would pass for one in Apparition), and it's like the filmmakers couldn't be bothered to yell "Cut - your crack is showing - let's do another take." I'm pretty sure they just didn't care. And if they didn't care, why should you?

10/27/16 - Prom Night (1980)

I had pretty high expectations for the original Prom Night. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say it's great, but it seems to have a decent enough reputation. And it's always fun to check out a slasher film from the late 70s/early 80s, when the template hadn't been totally set yet. Although I guess whether or not it should be considered it a slasher film proper is up for some debate - it really does feel more like a mystery/thriller rather than an out and out slasher flick. But I guess having Jamie Lee Curtis, a masked killer, and being released in the slasher boom will get you that reputation. And it probably didn't hurt at the box office either.

10/26/16 - Blood Hook (1986)

Since we really needed a fishing-based horror film - we got Blood Hook. By "we" I mean mid-80s American Video stores (I'd guess this wasn't big in theaters), and by "horror film" I mean a goofy comedy masquerading as a horror film. Blood Hook is the kind of deal where you can't really tell (at first) if the filmmakers are spoofing the genre or just being really generic and tone deaf. And muddying the waters even more - it's got that regional feel to it, as it was shot in beautiful Hayward, Wisconsin. (Making it my third Wisconsin-based film of the month, after The Rohl Farm Haunting and Deranged. Strange.) But eventually you get the idea that it was written and shot with its tongue planted firmly in cheek.

10/25/16 - Navy Seals vs. Zombies

________ vs. Zombies is apparently a big thing. I have already seen Strippers vs. Zombies and Pro Wrestlers vs. Zombies, and will almost certainly regret watching Bigfoot vs. Zombies, which is lurking near the top of my Amazon Prime Watchlist. (For the record, Strippers was okay, and Pro Wrestlers is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.) But today, I watch Navy Seals vs. Zombies (aka Navy Seals: The Battle for New Orleans) on Netflix. It's not a very good movie, but it's not actively bad either. It's just kind of there.

10/24/16 - The Neon Dead (2015)

I really rather liked The Neon Dead. It's a scrappy little indie flick with a lot of style and a unique visual hook. Plus, it's hard for me not to like a film made in 2015 that has uses stop motion animation for its big bad.

And I hate having to put this disclaimer on all of these indie horror entries, but that's the world we live in. Thanks Obama... The Neon Dead is not a slick, big-or-even-modestly budgeted film - imdb has it listed at $17,000. It does feel amateurish at times, and the acting isn't always so great. So while I'll be talking about how much I dug it, it's probably not going to change your mind about inexpensive indie stuff. Although I will say it's considerably more ambitious than something from the "let's make a documentary about ghost hunting" genre. And for those of us who can swing cheap music, normal looking people, and the other "warts and all" in this sort of movie, that ambition pays of in a really fun film.

10/23/16 - Prince of Darkness (1987)

Personally, I was expecting a little more Prince of Darkness in Prince of Darkness. If you told me "here's a movie about Satan, except instead of Satan it's a big green vial of crap," I would expect the worst. But leave it to John Carpenter to take that concept and make a pretty darn good movie about it. Misleading? Maybe. But it's still a pretty decent watch.

I'm not overly familiar with the horror maestro's work. (Shake your finger at me - "Thats a BAD horror movie blogger.") But he seems to excel at taking a group of people and trapping them in an isolated location - this time, it's at an abandoned church surrounded by crazy homeless people (including Alice Cooper!), where a ancient (and evil!) artifact has recently been unearthed. According to an old text, the green goo will be instrumental in bringing Old Scratch back our plane of existence. The big vial of green stuff made me wonder what kind of film John Carpenter's Secret of the Ooze would have been - probably no Vanilla Ice. And a lot more vomit.

10/22/16 - Tombs of the Blind Dead (1972)

Amando de Ossorio's Tombs of the Blind Dead is a good old-fashioned atmospheric zombie flick. It sometimes gets billed as Spain's answer to Romero's Night of the Living Dead - i.e. a moody, suspenseful, first-generation zombie film, before things got gonzo in the late 70s. And it's an apt comparison. Night is a lot stronger in the story department, but both manage to generate a ton of tension and dread with their slow, lumbering dead. Although I would say Tombs does so more cinematically, whereas Night depended on a more gritty realism.

10/21/16 - Boardinghouse (1982)

Boardinghouse is a really strange, strange film. I picked it up on DVD about a year ago after hearing about it psychotronic movie podcast called That's Cool, That's Trash. It's a shot on video horror film with a unique history - it is purportedly the first film to be shot on video and then theatrically released, as well as the first film to use computerized credits (if you believe the interview with writer/director/star John Wintergate). Also, on the DVD there is a Director's Cut that clocks in at (a certainly punishing) 157 minutes, while the Theatrical Cut is 98. I watched the Theatrical cut, because spending 157 minutes on a shot on video film just sounds crazy. But I dug it enough that I'll have to watch the director's cut - maybe as something to kill time while I try to get black-out drunk on Election Day? (Seriously, I'm terrified about what might happen. Voting early in the morning and then trying to pass out might be my best course of action, if I want to avoid any anxiety attacks.) And I don't know, something about Boardinghouse's sheer lunacy just seems like it might be a good fit.

10/20/16 - Sacrifice (2016)

After digging up a bizarrely mutilated corpse on her land, physician Tora Hamilton uncovers a lethal connection to ancient pagan rituals.

So goes the Netflix description for Sacrifice. And while it's essentially accurate, after watching the thing it feels a little misleading. I was expecting some hot pagan action - you know, crazy cultists in robes chasing people around, nutso rituals and skull masks, and all that kind of stuff. But Sacrifice just isn't that movie. Despite being in the "horror" section of the Netflix site, it's much more of a mystery/thriller. Yeah, it has elements of pagan rituals and some weird stuff, but it almost plays more like a spooky Halloween episode of Criminal Minds or something. (Or at least what I'd imagine Criminal Minds is like, having never actually seen it.)

10/19/16 - The Neon Demon (2016)

I think this is only on DVD/Blu-Rays of big studio releases, but I kind of hate how they show you the MPAA rating, including all of the reasons, before a film starts. It sort of spoils things, you know? For example, The Neon Demon: Rated R for "disturbing violent content, bloody images, graphic nudity, a scene of aberrant sexuality, and language." Guess which one jumps out at me? So I'm spending the film with that in the back of my mind, just waiting for an aberrant sexual act. Also, what qualifies as "aberrant" in the eyes of the MPAA? Knowing them, non-heterosexual sex? But I guess The Neon Demon eventually delivers in the aberrant sex department... let's just say I won't be recommending this to anyone at work.

But it's reminds me of how credits can kind of play as spoilers too. Like if I see a movie with a "monster design by" or "creature effects by" credit, I get excited... "okay, there's a monster coming up." But with this ratings business, I'm sitting there waiting for Some Drug Use, or Some Sequences of Explicit Sexual Content Including Perverse Imagery. It kind of ruins the surprise.

The Neon Demon is pretty good.

10/18/16 - Zombie Werewolves Attack (2009)

I watched Zombie Werewolves Attack because I was looking for something on Amazon Prime that was (A) short, and (B) made in the 80s. (To keep things fresh during this movie a day thing, I try to not watch too many movies made in the same era consecutively.) The Roku Amazon app had this listed as being made in 1984. But that's a pretty obvious typo, and this is clearly a 2000's shot-on-consumer-grade camera deal. But I guess qualification (A) won out, because I finished the darn thing.

10/17/16 - The Girl in the Photographs

The Girl in the Photographs is the last thing horror maestro Wes Craven had his name attached to before his death in 2015 (he was the executive producer). It's too bad that this film has gotten pretty bad-to-middling reviews - it would have been nice to see his career end on a high note. But the "For Wes" at the end isn't totally embarrassing. It's always kind of depressing when an absolute piece of crap is dedicated to a recently deceased person. And The Girl in the Photographs isn't an absolute piece of crap. That's not to say it's good - it has good moments and looks nice at times, but generally is bogged down by an uninteresting story, lack of tension, and annoying characters.

It is kind of funny though, in that it starts off like Craven's (2nd?) most influential film Scream - but in a way that will only really click with horror nerds.

10/16/16 - Motel Hell (1980)

I'm pretty sure I saw parts of Motel Hell on TNT or something about 15 years ago. I vaguely remember a pig mask and a chainsaw fight. And when Mr. Burns made that Rory Calhoun joke, I always thought "oh yeah, that guy from Motel Hell!" But I haven't seen it proper until now.

It had sort of been built up in my head as a cult classic of sorts. But honestly Motel Hell didn't really do it for me. Mr. Calhoun gives a good performance, but the horror and comedy aspects just didn't mesh. Motel Hell keeps getting billed as a comedy, but it doesn't hit that way. Yes, some characters are crazy and over the top. But those characters don't constitute comedy in and of themselves - there still needs to be some jokes somewhere. And falling in the mud (which happens to two different characters) doesn't cut it. I guess "religious and proper old man farmer does decidedly unproper things" just isn't that funny for me.

10/15/16 - Deranged (1974)

All right! Deranged is my first real pleasant surprise of the month. "Pleasant" meaning I really liked the movie - the subject matter / film itself is decidedly unpleasant. But, considering this was on the flip-side of a disc featuring Motel Hell, I went in expecting some sort of horror comedy. But it's kind of hard for a movie based on serial killer Ed Gein to be comedic, I guess.

I had no idea what this film was really about at the outset - I rented the disc for Motel Hell, so this was as close to a blind watch as you can get. Plus, from afar the guy on the box art reminded me of David Hyde Pierce. Turns out it was just star Roberts Blossom wearing someone's face.

10/14/16 - The Astro-Zombies (1968)

I sort of know The Astro-Zombies by reputation. It eventually comes up in most conversations about notably terrible films. So naturally, because I have a problem, I have always wanted to see it. And when I saw there was fancy remastered Blu Ray coming out courtesy of Kino Lorber (including a Rifftrax commentary, as well as commentaries from writer/director Ted V. Mikels and Horror Cinema Historian Chris Alexander), I pre-ordered it and waited with bated breath.

And now, having watched it, I would say it's reputation as a contender for one of the worst is more or less earned. The Astro Zombies is a dull mess a lot of the time. But there's also a certain charm to it. It's definitely no good, but I would say that I half-enjoyed it.

10/13/16 - Dead 7 (2016)

So... would you be interested in a Walking Dead-ish zombie western? If so, would you still be interested if features a large number of former boy band pop stars in prominent roles? (It was produced by and stars Nick Carter of the the Backstreet Boys. and other members of BSB, *Nsync, 98 Degrees, and O-Town show up. Oh yeah, and Jon Secada for some reason.) Still with me? What if I told you it was produced by The Asylum to be shown as a SyFy movie of the week?

Well, that last one would turn me off Dead 7, but I'm watching a movie a day and figured what the heck. But even if you said yes to all those questions - the bottom line is that Dead 7 just isn't good. Which is a little frustrating, because there are some good ideas in the film. But mostly, it's a glossy/cheap looking film with gimmicky casting, strange performances, and a very bad script.

10/12/16 - They Saved Hitler's Brain (1968)

So... that's quite a title, eh? I have been hearing about this film for quite some time - mostly when reading about the shitty movies that happen when someone takes 2 or more movies filmed at different times and just mashes them together (Dracula vs. Frankenstein, Horror of the Blood Monsters). Apparently, most of They Saved Hitler's Brain was originally filmed as The Madman of Madras in the mid-50s, but was too short to run on television when the rights were purchased in 1968. So someone decided it would be a good idea to shoot more footage to tack onto the beginning of the film... and there you have it: They Saved Hitler's Brain!

To be honest, I didn't really even notice that the two parts of it were filmed at different times - maybe I was just really tired. (I did fall asleep more than once, although always rewound to the last scene I remembered.) I'm not too observant re: comparing and contrasting 50s & 60s fashion, and it didn't click that "hey, almost everyone from the first half-hour is dead now!" But whatever, it doesn't matter. There's a few laughs to be had while watching They Saved Hitler's Brain, but mostly it's a rough, rough watch.

10/11/16 - The Rohl Farms Haunting (2013)

Ever since the first Paranormal Activity blew up, there have been a lot of people making improvised found footage movies at their houses or whatever. No Budget? No Script? No Big Deal! I mean, you could argue that the lack of a script is in the service of realism... although it's also just way easier to write down a bunch of bullet points in one afternoon. So, realism or laziness. Maybe you can just call it a result of technological democratization - most people have better cameras on their phones that look better than anything I ever had access to at peak-creativity age. And never mind the editing software - how about hooking 2 VCRs together?

Like a character in the film implies, $1,200 will get you a solid camera to make a professional looking film. At least professional looking enough to get you on Amazon Prime. Now, The Rohl Farms Haunting isn't necessarily good by normal, objective movie standards, but it's definitely better than a lot of films that are made with the attitude of "Hey guys! We've got a camera and some time to kill - let's make a ghost hunting movie!" Dumbasses like me will apparently watch them regardless, so it's nice to get one that's borderline okay.

10/10/16 - Extraordinary Tales (2013)

All aboard the POOOOOOOE TRAIN! Where my Attitude Era fans at? I have to think there's a Poe story/Papa Shango pun out there in the ether somewhere, just waiting to be grabbed... all I'm getting is The Tell Tale Hart Foundation? Piper's Pit and the Pendulum? (What About Me, What About) The Raven? I don't know - why is it so much easier with the old guys?

Anyhow, I figured I'd follow up yesterday's The Oval Portrait with another Poe-inspired film. This time, it's an animated anthology featuring five adaptations of his stories. You only get about 10-15 minutes for each story, so nothing goes terribly in depth. I'm not too familiar with Poe, but I have to assume everything here is abridged to some extent. Every story in Extraordinary Tales has its own look animation-wise. Stylistically, they aren't wildly different from each other, but they all have a slightly different feel. So regardless of if you like a particular story or not, you don't end up spending a lot of time on each one, and overall the film moves at a good pace. And all but one are narrated - some nerd-famous name will just read the story, and the animation more or less matches up (i.e. there aren't separate voice actors for each character). And, it isn't terribly gory or anything. It's PG-13, so you could probably watch it in school. So i there are any lazy high school lit teachers out there looking for something to do this Halloween...

10/9/16 - The Oval Portrait (1972)

With a name like Edgar Allen Poe's "The Oval Portrait," it's got to be scary, right? Or how would you feel about a Civil War melodrama with a ghost?

I don't have the history of either Poe's story or this adaptation, but if I had to guess I'd say this thing was made for TV. It feels very soap opera-ish at times, and the structure and the caliber of the sets/costumes/etc. seem more fit for home exhibition. There aren't obvious giveaways (i.e. scenes that fade out and then in to provide an easy spot for a commercial break), but there is a "Guest Star" listed in the opening credits, so who knows. Now, this accusation of TV Moviedom isn't meant to dismiss it entirely; I actually had a pretty good time with The Oval Portrait. But I don't tend to watch soapy dramas, so it could have just been the novelty of the thing for me. I suspect if you watched period piece dramas regularly, this one would probably not be so good. But it passed the time inoffensively enough for me.

10/8/16 - Para Elisa (2012)

So, I watched Para Elisa. It is by no means a complex movie, but I was having trouble figuring out how to condense the plot into an easy line or two. Onto imdb.com! They say:

Para Elisa is a terrifying story based on a simple, innocent children's game. Something that looks naive and harmless turns into the worst nightmare, into the struggle to escape a tragic and expected end, into an explicit and inevitable horror.

What?

10/7/16 - The Dread (2007)

So I guess I was tempting fate by mostly recommending Bleed yesterday. Despite its flaws (and very low imdb rating), I kind of dug its kitchen sink approach, and could easily look past its iffy story telling choices and confusing plot points. But today brought me The Dread, which is even lower rated on imdb. And while it had the same approach in terms of mashing up genres (slasher/monster/ghost, in this case?) and a similar disinterest in explaining much story-wise, it didn't fare nearly as well.

It's clearly a cheaper film than Bleed, and considering The Dread was made about 10 years prior it's not going to look as good. I think indie films like this get dumped on more than they should, but even when a taken with a considerably sized grain of salt (I want to take it easy on films in this budget range, you know?), The Dread is not very good.

10/6/16 - Bleed (2016)

Every online indicator seemed to point towards me not liking Bleed. Netflix thought I would give it the dreaded one-star, and it had the lowest imdb rating that I've encountered this month. And that includes Black Eyed Children: Let Me In, which is barely even a movie! And while it's true that Bleed is often a cliched mess, I kind of appreciated that mess. It's got a kitchen sink approach regarding its subgenre/plot, looks slick, and is pretty gory without ever really going over the top. I *get* the one-star reviews, but I don't agree with them.

10/5/16 - Bunker of the Dead (2015)

So I'd have to think that Nazi Zombies are pretty much an official subgenre by now - between the Red Snow series, Frankenstein's Army, and Bunker of the Dead we've got a few to choose from. And that's just the European-produced ones. There's almost certainly a couple of American ones in there too. (You don't get to Osombie without at least trying zombie Hitler.)

But while there's always something interesting about Nazi Zombies in theory - there's a campy energy there, and they're probably going to look cool - it's almost always a matter of style over substance in these films. (Red Snow comes the closest to bucking that trend, I guess.) Bunker of the Dead is more of the same - the zombies look pretty good, there's some decent chaotic action, and the titular bunker is claustrophobic enough to give the film a decent atmosphere. And really, a hidden Nazi bunker on a US military base is not a terrible setting for a cheesy horror film. But the characters and story range from bad to bland, so nothing sticks.

10/4/16 - The Blood Lands (2014)

The Blood Lands starts off promisingly. From the outset, you can tell it's a well put together film. It's well shot, has a cool looking central location (an old home in the Scottish countryside), and the leads are likable enough. That's especially important here, since they are pretty much the only non-masked people in the film. The first half-hour or so is a slow build with very little action, but it's well done enough that you have high hopes for things once they eventually get into motion.

And when they do? It's not bad, but mostly feels like your standard issue home invasion flick, with maybe a little less of a sadistic streak. But again, it's competent enough that if gives you faith in the rest of it - you want to wait around and see if the story can deliver. You want to be on its side, which is more than you can say for a lot of movies. So there's that.

10/3/16 - Black Eyed Children: Let Me In (2015)

I don't want to be too hard on people who make films with very few resources. I mean, making a movie, shitty or not, takes a ton of work. So, even when a movie like Black Eyed Children: Let Me In is really, really bad, it's at least worthy of respect and admiration on some level.

Maybe this is even more true for B.E.C. than most indie horror, because for a while it actually seems like writer-director Justin Snyder might actually be making this film totally on his own. Early on, he's just talking to the camera alone, using a microphone not meant for handheld use (bad sound is a recurring thing throughout), and even when he's interviewing another person in frame the camera isn't moving. I would bet Snyder doesn't have a camera man in tow - in fact, this is one of the first movies I've ever seen where I'm pretty sure some people just filmed their parts on their own and mailed them in. A lot of B.E.C. is just a step up from those YouTube talking head conspiracy "documentaries," complete with crummy looking images (almost certainly from a google image search) that are just thrown over the shots of Snyder rambling at the camera. And rambling seems to be the correct term here - I would be shocked if most of what is said in this movie was written down beforehand. Besides the people that are obviously reading their lines, of course.

10/2/16 - The Wicker Man (2006)

As I get older, I find myself getting less and less upset with remakes. At this point, it's like getting pissed at the wind. (My dog has been known to do this, barking wildly at the swaying branches.) Or maybe getting mad at the current state of politics. It is what it is, there's no changing it, it's not really worth expending energy on.

However, even with that liberal (in the internet age, at least) take on the subject, I have a hard time trying to figure out why anyone would try to remake The Wicker Man. It's got such a good reputation that it would be virtually impossible for you to come out in front of it - it's setting yourself up for failure, even if your movie is pretty good on its own. (Please note: this one is not.) There's a reason that The Classics remain untouched, and yeah, the original Wicker Man is a Classic. BUT, say you take that ill-advised leap and decide to do it - why would you change so much that made it great in the first place? While it's true that the bones of the story are the same here in the 2006 version, so much of what I really dug about the original doesn't make it here - the atmosphere, the use of music, general unease (here it's much more overt), the religiousness of the main character... it gets to a point that it should really just be a different movie.

And who could forget the CGI bees?

10/1/16 - Night of the Comet (1984)

Night of the Comet is a film I've been hearing about for quite a while. Without doing much research - (less than a day into the re-launch of the blog and I'm already feeling lazy),  I think Night is the kind of film that more or less died upon release and only found a cult-foothold once the internet sort of brought it back to life.

And to be honest, I'm not sure how much of the praise is deserved and how much of it is just nostalgia. It wasn't a *bad* movie by any means - it just feels sort of... sparse? Like there just isn't enough for our characters to do. I mean, it's true that Night takes place in a pseudo-post-apocalyptic Los Angeles, where a comet turns just about everyone in the city (and presumably the rest of the world) into dust, so the cast is pretty small. But there just isn't enough action to make things exciting for the first half of the movie. I mean, seeing totally empty downtown LA was cool for a minute, but after a while you want a little something more, you know?