HorrorMovieFans.com

zombie wrote:

Jigsaw wrote:Wolves at the Door (2016)

The only reason that I sought this movie out was due to Elizabeth Henstridge, who plays one of the main characters in Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D, a show I rather enjoy. And as it turns out, aside from Henstridge, this movie doesn't have much going for it. Dramatizing the events of the murder of Sharon Tate and company (purely hinted at until the end), Wolves at the Door is almost utterly run-of-the-mill. If you've seen Ils (2006) or The Strangers (2008), or hell, even The Purge (2013), you've seen a more enthralling and tense movie than this one. Adam Campbell (Wojciech) has some decent scenes, and if you like the ascetic of someone dragging a sledgehammer across the ground, well, Wolves at the Door has that also. But aside from Elizabeth Henstridge, who does a decent job despite the shallow script, the best I can say is that occasionally good 60's songs play, such as “She's Not There” by The Zombies and “Lil' Red Riding Hood” by Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs.” There's nothing else though – this movie is otherwise empty. And while I wasn't fond of it that first time I saw it, I'm even less fond of it now. Not much here to recommend, folks. 4/10.

[Originally seen for the 2017 October Challenge]

fitz-simmons (and clark gregg) is the best reason to watch agents of shield!

Brett Dalton did a damn fine job also (that season 1 mid-twist, tho), but yes, pretty much what you said.

Got It (2017) on DVD, and finished it earlier.

I'm a giant fan of the novel It – I read it annually. It's all-around a fantastic book. I have great memories of the television mini-series from 1990, but let's be honest: it certainly was lacking most of the great things the book brought us. And so when I went to go see this in theaters when it initially came out, I had my fingers crossed that we'd get a better adaptation. And though It was not without flaws, we basically did.

Let's talk about the main seven kids, first. All actors did a good job, but the biggest kudos go to Finn Wolfhard (Richie), Jaeden Lieberher (Bill), Wyatt Oleff (Stan), and Sophia Lewis (Beverly). Richie was a crowd-pleaser, and for good reason. He had a plethora of fantastic lines, hilarious quips, and was overall a great character. Bill was as solid as you'd hope he'd be, and Lieberher did well to show the pain of losing his younger brother. Stan was a favorite of mine from the book, and Oleff played his careful nature (that bike stand scene gets a kick out of me) perfectly. And as for Lewis? Does wonderful with this new version of Beverly, who is so different from the mini-series.

While Mike, Ben, and Eddie were well-acted, I had a few gripes with some of their storylines. Mike no longer being the historian, that role instead going to Ben (in reality, both characters sort of filled the role in the book to a certain extent) really reduced the potency of Mike's character, There wasn't even a race-element, that we saw, of Henry's bullying him. Mike just seemed like he had nothing much to do throughout the film. Ben played his lovesick puppy act well, but really, he was more a punching bag for both Henry and Pennywise more than anything else. Eddie (Jack Dylan Grazer) was well-done, and while I prefer the four listed above, he was the fifth best-done kid.

Bill Skarsgård brought Pennywise to life in a whole new way. I'm not going to say that Curry didn't do a good job. But I will say what another individual said about comparing the two: Curry seemed like an evil clown, moderately charming, even, and not much more. Skarsgård had moments that made him seem alien (the beginning with George, where his smile and laughter suddenly died, for instance), and he honestly felt more threatening than most of Curry's performance. Playing more like a kid, also, was a great addition.

Patrick needed more scenes to show the extent of his insanity (such as in the book), and honestly, I thought all of the bullies, Henry included, needed more characterization. Showing Henry's father embarrassing him once doesn't do it for me.

While there were certainly a high amount of jump scares, and occasionally some not-so-great CGI, there were some standout scenes I really liked, such as Stan's encounter with Pennywise near the end, Georgie's encounter at the beginning, and the projector scene (overall). The Neibolt House sequences were certainly enjoyable also.

As for drawbacks, I have a few: the run-time, even at two hours and 15 minutes, was too short, some portions feeling rushed. I feel as though another 30 minutes, to carve out a few more characters, such as Patrick or Henry, wouldn't have gone amiss. What they did with Mike's character just felt off, as they gave most of what he was known for to Ben, which gave Ben a bit more to do, but really left Mike in the dust. I do have to mention also that I dislike that they moved the children's portion from the late 50's to the late 80's. I get why they did it, and it came out alright, but I still don't like it.

Some of the classic scenes of the book, such as Richie and Bill's journey to Neibolt House, Mike's encounter with the giant bird, and the Killer Eye in the sewers, were nowhere to be seen. Hell, the Smokehole would have been extremely cool also, and bringing up the Ritual of Chüd should have been mandatory. Exploring more of Derry's past too, would have been welcomed.

Overall, though, I think that It was a fine adaptation. Not as great as could be done – we'd probably need an HBO mini-series to get something even close – but very enjoyable indeed. 8.5/10.

Prom Night (1980)

I've seen this movie around five times now, and I can finally appreciate it more than I've been able to in the past. My main problems stemmed from the fact that many of the characters seemed interchangeable – the difference between Kelly and Jude and Vicki and even Jamie Lee Curtis' Kim never stuck with me, and so I lost track of who's who and what relationship between everybody was as the movie dragged on, which wasn't helped out by the fact Nick and Alex didn't look all that different from each other either. With this most recent viewing, though, things were cleared up, and while it doesn't save the film, it goes a long way in increasing my rating.

Aside from Jamie Lee Curtis (who, by the way, had some fantastically cheesy dance scenes toward the end), there weren't a whole lot of stand-out performances. I liked Nielsen well enough, along with Eddie Benton (mega-bitch Wendy), Michael Tough (Kim's brother, Alex), Joy Thompson (Jude), and Sheldon Rybowski (Slick, a deliciously fun character), but none of them blew me away. Which is sort of a shame, because for the first two acts, next to nothing horror-wise occurs to keep us otherwise occupied.

Which is my biggest gripe of the film – it's drags on too long at the beginning. Once we get an hour in, I start having a great time (that decapitation is still a favorite of mine), but getting there, more than anything else, is a chore. It feels like Carrie (1976), in many ways, actually, as it just drags on and on until we get to an epic finale.

I did like the end, which was actually rather somber. There were plenty of attractive ladies throughout, and while nudity wasn't high, it was still a nice plus. Again, Jamie Lee Curtis did a good job (even though that disco dance is so dated), though I still say Terror Train was a better movie overall, which also came out 1980. Lastly, the song that bled into the credits, “Fade to Black” by Gordene Simpson, was beautifully sung, and though I didn't notice it during my first viewings of this flick, it really is a nice song.

Prom Night, despite the problems I have (not mentioned, but I feel the killer's absence would have been noted, for instance), has a lot of charm. It drags, but it is still a decently well-done slasher. I still don't love it. But I'm closer than I have been before. 6.5/10.

Rocky Marathon thus far

Rocky ......... A+
Rocky II ....... B+
Rocky III ...... B
Rocky IV ...... A-

Rocky V ......... C

Dead & Buried (1981)

I've now seen this film twice, and it has thoroughly been cemented into my favorite horror flicks of the 1980's.

Dead & Buried is a moody and atmospheric classic, one that I think every horror fan should give a shot. The plot takes you for a ride - you might think you see what's coming, but you may be in for a surprise. The atmosphere is wonderfully tense and mysterious, and like the main character, Sheriff Dan Gillis (played by James Farentino), you're wondering what the hell is going on.

Dead & Buried is an innovative movie that is held back only by leaving a few too many unanswered questions at the end, along with some moderately hokey acting by Farentino later on in the flick. But the positives far outweigh the downsides.

James Farentino and Jack Albertson (playing a very memorable coroner/mortician) did amazing throughout the film, and although, like I said, Farentino got a bit iffy toward the end, he still did a damn fine job. Also worth noting: while he didn't appear much, Robert Englund was also in the flick, playing one of the townsfolk. Always fun to see him, no matter how unsubstantial the role.

The gore level isn't all that high, but there are amazing special effects throughout (Stan Winston did so well here), and really, just for those alone, it's worth watching.

It's hard to overstate how amazing this film is, even with the drawbacks. It may feel like a Twilight Zone episode at times, albeit a violent one, but that just adds to it's charm. A fine movie in any horror fan's collection, Dead & Buried has been overlooked for far too long. This movie certainly did it for me, and that ending is not one I will be forgetting anytime soon. 9/10.

Jigsaw wrote:Dead & Buried (1981)

I've now seen this film twice, and it has thoroughly been cemented into my favorite horror flicks of the 1980's.

Dead & Buried is a moody and atmospheric classic, one that I think every horror fan should give a shot. The plot takes you for a ride - you might think you see what's coming, but you may be in for a surprise. The atmosphere is wonderfully tense and mysterious, and like the main character, Sheriff Dan Gillis (played by James Farentino), you're wondering what the hell is going on.

Dead & Buried is an innovative movie that is held back only by leaving a few too many unanswered questions at the end, along with some moderately hokey acting by Farentino later on in the flick. But the positives far outweigh the downsides.

James Farentino and Jack Albertson (playing a very memorable coroner/mortician) did amazing throughout the film, and although, like I said, Farentino got a bit iffy toward the end, he still did a damn fine job. Also worth noting: while he didn't appear much, Robert Englund was also in the flick, playing one of the townsfolk. Always fun to see him, no matter how unsubstantial the role.

The gore level isn't all that high, but there are amazing special effects throughout (Stan Winston did so well here), and really, just for those alone, it's worth watching.

It's hard to overstate how amazing this film is, even with the drawbacks. It may feel like a Twilight Zone episode at times, albeit a violent one, but that just adds to it's charm. A fine movie in any horror fan's collection, Dead & Buried has been overlooked for far too long. This movie certainly did it for me, and that ending is not one I will be forgetting anytime soon. 9/10.

Nice review Jiggy you need to export these bad boys to the movie reviews thread get it going

These aren't meant to be anything more than just mini-reviews, though I admit, in recent times, they have been getting lengthier. :p

Jigsaw wrote:These aren't meant to be anything more than just mini-reviews, though I admit, in recent times, they have been getting lengthier. :p

Perfect size imo

Iced (1988)

I'm not ashamed to say that I find Iced an enjoyable slasher. Of course, since I like 3/4's of all 70's and 80's slashers, perhaps that doesn't come as a surprise.

Iced is a low-quality late addition to the slasher genre, and doesn't really have much to add. The kills vary in quality (weakest, by far, was a hot tub electrocution, but both the icicle kill, along with the bear-trap death, were quite fun), but for the most part, they were all good fun. The setting, a secluded cabin in the snowy wilderness, was delightful also (reminiscent, almost, of 1984's Satan's Blade).

None of the cast did particularly amazing, but I will say, many of the folks in this flick have been in other classic (and not so classic) films around the same time. Debra De Liso (Trina), who did, in my opinion, pretty decently throughout, was in The Slumber Party Massacre (1982). Doug Stevenson (Cory) was briefly in The Prowler (1981). Ron Kologie (Carl) was in the mess Cards of Death (1986). Joseph Alan Johnson (Alex) was also in The Slumber Party Massacre, along with 1987's Berserker (a slasher I've not had the pleasure to view yet). Lastly, Lisa Loring (Jeanette) was in Blood Frenzy (1987).

So while not great, those actors and actresses certainly got around the horror genre, and all things considered, no one really did terribly in Iced (the nudity certainly didn't hurt matters). Oh, the conversations were often awkward or stilted, but isn't that half the fun? And don't get me started on that utterly ridiculous ending...

Iced is one of those flicks that would probably only appeal to slasher fans. It's not the bottom of the barrel, as far as quality goes (1986's Night Ripper! might get that accolade), but Iced is certainly no Friday the 13th. That said, I enjoyed the hell out of this movie, legitimately. Not an A+ slasher, but an all-around solid viewing. 8/10.

Iced apparently has no official DVD or Blu-Ray release, and is only on VHS (unless you, of course, burn a VHSrip onto DVD ). I think that's rather a shame.

The Strangers: Prey At Night

After walking out of this one I was trying to think of a highly acclaimed first film that was enjoyable and solid, only for a sequel to come along and just shit in your cereal bowl. Not until I got home while I was using the bathroom that it finally dawned on me. The Strangers 2 is basically The Descent Part 2. Just a needless film cashing in on the property name and overall success of the first film that just makes you hate that a sequel even exists in the first place.

Honestly, there is no reason to see The Strangers 2. It's a dull, cliched movie that you've seen done better numerous times from other home invasion movies since the release of the first Strangers film. Don't get me started on how they straight up lifted the ending of Texas Chainsaw Massacre during the final moments of Prey At Night. Yes, i'm talking about the Truck scene. Fuck out of here.

Ouch. I was on the fence about seeing it, but I've seen a few online reviews like yours where they enjoyed the first, but gave this one the middle finger. Count me out now, I'm tight on money. Maybe I'll watch it for free when it hits Netflix.

Havok wrote:The Strangers: Prey At Night

After walking out of this one I was trying to think of a highly acclaimed first film that was enjoyable and solid, only for a sequel to come along and just shit in your cereal bowl. Not until I got home while I was using the bathroom that it finally dawned on me. The Strangers 2 is basically The Descent Part 2. Just a needless film cashing in on the property name and overall success of the first film that just makes you hate that a sequel even exists in the first place.

Honestly, there is no reason to see The Strangers 2. It's a dull, cliched movie that you've seen done better numerous times from other home invasion movies since the release of the first Strangers film. Don't get me started on how they straight up lifted the ending of Texas Chainsaw Massacre during the final moments of Prey At Night. Yes, i'm talking about the Truck scene. Fuck out of here.

i don't like this review. but that seems to be what i'm hearing elsewhere too.

Rocky Balboa ....... B+
Creed ................ A

Well, that' disappointing. On the bright side, Havok just saved me $10. Maybe I'll see Black Panther instead.

To Wong Foo, Thanks For Everything, Julie Newmar ... B
The Birdcage .................................................. A+
Godzilla: King of the Monsters (1956) ..................... B
Return of Godzilla (1984) ................................... A-

Rewatched Dolls (1987) earlier. I'll post my review a bit later.

In short, it's an enjoyable movie.

Dolls (1987)

Seeing this movie a second time really solidified what I felt the first time around: while certainly corny at times, with some overacting afoot, Dolls has a lot of feeling to it.

There were some atrocious characters in the film (Bunty Bailey's Isabel, Carolyn Purdy-Gordon's Rosemary, and Ian Patrick Williams' David), but the heart of the film lie in Judy, Ralph, and the elderly couple Hilary and Gabriel.

Played by Stephen Lee, Ralph was a great character, and while at times he was played up a bit much as the comic relief, I really enjoyed how he was able to connect with Judy (Carrie Lorraine) better than her father or step-mother ever could. And of course, Hilary Mason does wonderful as a witch-type old woman. While Ralph was a great character, though, the true stand-out is Guy Rolfe's performance as Gabriel.

Charismatic and often kindhearted, Gabriel was a real treat, who spoke with respect to those who deserved it. In many ways, his placement of importance on kids' and their wonder really reminded me, oddly enough, of a Willy Wonka-type character. Who couldn't love that?

In relation, this movie had a strong fantasy feel throughout, which, while at times I find bothersome in a horror flick, really worked out well here. Stuart Gordon did a great job balancing the two, and while overall I think Paperhouse (1988) is a better fantasy/horror blend, Dolls is damn enjoyable also.

There were creepy scenes throughout, some subtle, some not so, and the kills were both memorable and, at times, brutal (I enjoyed the dolls attacking one of the characters in waves, but the firing squad death has to be my favorite - the slow motion worked really well there). The stop motion effects were pretty good looking, so kudos to that department also. Lastly, the music throughout the film was deeply enjoyable. Sometimes suspenseful, sometimes fantastical, those who worked on the score did a really great job. High quality all around.

Dolls isn't by any means the perfect film, but it does possess occasionally poignant scenes and overall comes across as a feel-good movie, despite the violence. It harkens back to the creativity of childhood, and questions why we lost the wonder most of us once had. It's a pleasant watch, in short, and I'd certainly recommend this to any interested party. 8.5/10.



Sssssss (1973)

I've seen this movie once before, but honestly, I don't quite recall when. At first, this seemed like a new watch, but about 30 minutes into the flick, it hit me that it was awfully familiar. Which, whether that says something negative about the movie or myself, well, is entirely up to you.

That being said, that seems a moderately good story when talking about this film, because despite some decent tension, solid acting, and a downer of an ending, Sssssss seems like a pretty forgettable affair.

Strother Martin is pretty well-cast as an almost Universal movie mad scientist-type guy, which becomes more evident as the movie drags on. His daughter in the flick, played by Heather Menzies (who, on a side-note, reminded me a hell of a lot of a younger Ellie Sattler from Jurassic Park), was probably one of the most solid actresses of the film, her looks also standing out as a positive. The main character, of sorts (because really, this more feels like the Strother Martin hour than it does Benedict), is played by Dirk Benedict, who did well with what he was given, but honestly, I don't feel he stands out all that much.

Which is sort of a problem, because this movie tends to drag at the beginning, and even when interesting things begin to happen, it's not like the flick jumps into hyper-speed. Many 70's flicks tend to have pacing problems like this. For instance, the 1972 Stanley (another snake horror movie, by the way), had next to no horror for the first 45 minutes. I'd argue, though, that Stanley had far more interesting and deep characters than what we're given here.

When a movie drags, and the characters can't really pull the weight the plot's unable to, then you've got some bad problems.

Of course, this isn't to say the movie is terrible. Dodgy special effects aside, I liked the ending, for the most part, and an earlier scene, the death of a snake, actually elicited a pissed off response from me, which isn't really what one would expect from a 70's film. Throughout a lot of the movie, there seemed to be sort of a darker mood, with occasional assistance from the score, culminating in the ending, which was perhaps the most stand-out portion of the flick.

All-in-all, I wouldn't say that Sssssss is a bad movie. I can name plenty of other movies around the same time that I much prefer to this one, but given the output of 70's horror, that shouldn't come as a surprise. It's just hovering around average, held back by a sluggish pace and mostly uninteresting characters. As far as 70's snake horror goes, I'll probably stick with Stanley, as I found it both more consistently memorable and amusing. 6/10.

Great reviews, as always! Bunty Bailey was the chick in the Take on Me video, and she married the singer. You probably knew that.