HorrorMovieFans.com

Headhunter wrote:Bad Times at the El Royale --- A-

This one is a lot of fun. It does so many things so well, it feels close to being a truly GREAT movie. But there's a little bit of fluff, it's uneven at times and probably could have been 15-20 minutes shorter. There were a lot of great ideas to sort through, and it wasn't quite crafted together as well as it possibly could have been, or this is an A or A+. But it's top notch suspense, some great performances, really well-written and edited. Has a lot of Tarantino to it. Definitely worth checking out.

This hits it pretty well. I dug it, but it's length definitely hurt, there just wasn't enough meat on the bone to extend it that long. If I was part of the editing team, I could easily see running this back a couple times and easily getting it under two hours and making a better movie for it, this needed more Reservoir Dogs not Pulp Fiction treatment. Especially liked Hemsworth in it, now I get to point out to all the chicks that love him that he likes em raw and wriggling.

Cold Pursuit ........... B

Solid Liam Neeson thriller with dark comedy sprinkled throughout. Starts off a bit clunky, as it they were trying to shoe-horn the "Liam Neeson Against _____" trope that might not have been there in the first place, but once it settles it goes along pretty smooth.

Mary Queen of Scots - B+

It’s actually interesting and an era I am not very familiar with. Some very good acting by both female leads and by a couple Last Kingdom and Line of Duty alum. Plus David Tennant in his real accent is always impressive. I do think it was betrayed a lot by the trailer which mainly takes footage from the final 5-10 minutes in the main, instead of from the start.

I also think, possibly wrongly, that the film does cover a lot in its running time. Possibly too much. And they rather ruin it by starting with a scene from the end before going back to the beginning.

Overall a solid attempt.



Happy Death Day 2U - A-

I think if you were going to do a sequel then this was probably as good a sequel as you could manage. It loses the creepy babyfaced killer in every death angle that was effective in the first, but given it introduces a new peril I think it’s justified. It also asks somewhat more pressing questions about choice, free will, and morality. Which is not what I was expecting to happen. All told there were enough laughs and questions to keep me interested, I like the original characters, and it had a few great hooks and comedy moments. Skydiving was probably the best bit for comedy. Doesn’t hurt that she’s gorgeous in a pink bikini. Would watch again.

Bohemian Rhapsody ............ B+

Really liked it. The only thing that really stuck out to me as bad was how much well documented history they rewrote for dramatic effect, which came off as cheap (like his AIDS reveal...when rehearsing for Live AID). It's one thing if it's a he-said-she-said history like Green Book where Don's family came out of the woodwork finally after the release of the film, but here...well Rolling Stone did a good article on the bulk of what they got wrong, lol.

Shakespeare in Love ........... B

It's really not bad. Watching it again after 20 years, the anger of it winning over Saving Private Ryan long bashed it unfairly. But then, it still didn't deserve all that praise, nor winning by a long shot. It's a decent picture that had no right to be competing like it did. I know I listed it as a "fuck this" but it was free to me so I gave it a go.

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:Shakespeare in Love ........... B

It's really not bad. Watching it again after 20 years, the anger of it winning over Saving Private Ryan long bashed it unfairly. But then, it still didn't deserve all that praise, nor winning by a long shot. It's a decent picture that had no right to be competing like it did. I know I listed it as a "fuck this" but it was free to me so I gave it a go.

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Last of the Living (2009)

This film pretty much feels like New Zealand's answer to Shaun of the Dead. A low-budget flick with a small cast but a lot of heart, Last of the Living is a generally enjoyable watch.

Despite using some techniques that I never much cared for (such as blood splatter hitting the camera), this movie did pretty well with the small budget they possessed. Plenty of fun fighting sequences, not to mention a few enjoyable collages, and just some stand-out smaller scenes, such as when the three main characters go shopping. It wasn't anything special, but it just felt right, for lack of a better description. Special effects weren't that amazing, but personally, I think the characters and the overall fun of the film sort of make up for that shortcoming.

The cast, with all due respect, are pretty much nobodies. Our three main male characters, played by Morgan Williams, Robert Faith, and Ashleigh Southam, all did pretty good with their roles, and all three were pretty likable characters (Williams' character could be a dick at times, but he was still a mostly solid guy). Southam in particular was a fun actor, playing a somewhat nerdy, yet still efficient, zombie killer. Emily Paddon-Brown, playing about the only serious character in the film, was both a beauty to behold and honestly, probably put up one of the better performances in the movie.

Because there are virtually only four important characters in the film, it sort of helps add to the whole "last of the living" type vibe, even though we know there has to be more people out there. There were some pretty touching scenes, even, toward the end of the film, which came across sort of a surprise given this is pretty much your run-of-the-mill zombie comedy. The soundtrack was also pretty solid, for the most part.

The biggest flaw here is that the movie runs a bit longer than I'd have liked. Sort of felt a bit spread thin near the end, say the final ten minutes. If it could have been wrapped up in 80 minutes, and it easily could have been, I'd argue it'd come out a bit better. Not only does it drag a bit toward the end, but the ending itself wasn't really what I'd have expected from a movie like this. Nothing is wrong with it, it just went a route I would've preferred the film left alone. Lastly, while most of the comedy is perfectly fine, there were a few small scenes that didn't do it for me. That, along with some minor audio quality issues, weren't that big a deal, but if you're going into this looking to be disappointed, I think they'll definitely stand out.

Sure, Last of the Living isn't much different than Shaun of the Dead, and certainly didn't introduce anything new (though I'd argue it's much the same case with most zombie films), but it had some pretty fun characters, enjoyable and touching scenes, and overall a sort of low-budget party vibe to it. Does it run a bit long? Sure, but I can certainly see myself putting this in my DVD played again and giving it a third viewing. It wasn't original, but I don't think it was meant to be. It was meant to be fun, and I think Last of the Living succeeded. 7.5/10.


Night of the Blood Beast (1958)

Despite the fun title, this late 50's flick, produced by Roger Corman, ends up being a pretty dull affair.

There are portions of the film which do possess a decent atmosphere. Due to the small cast, there's a sense of seclusion prominent also, which I think helps add to the feeling of dread (it's never quite captured well, but that was the intent). A few decent shots of blood certainly helped a little, but given the design of the monster was pretty laughable, it's somewhat hard to take seriously.

The cast did just as well as you would expect. Nothing too over-the-top, nothing too hammy, but also nothing that really positively stood out. Michael Emmet, Angela Greene, John Baer, Ed Nelson, Tyler McVey, and Georgianna Carter put in adequate enough performances, and though far from great, I somewhat doubt the acting would be one's main concern when watching the film.

Really, it just comes down to the fact that it's a slow-going movie. No, nothing as bad as Curse of the Faceless Man, which came out the same year, but if you get through this without feeling either bored or drowsy, I award you. The director of this picture, Bernard Kowalski, also directed the more enjoyable Attack of the Giant Leeches (from 1959) and much later, Sssssss (1973).

From his horror legacy, such as it is, I imagine many would consider Night of the Blood Beast to be his least favorable entry to the genre. Perhaps, for a dark and rainy night, this movie's atmosphere could be amplified to an almost-threatening nature, but in most cases, this is a pretty weak film. Sad to say that my views haven't much changed since the last time I saw it. 5/10.


The Boy (2016)

I saw this in theaters shortly after it came out, and while I didn't love it, I thought it was sort of interesting. Seeing it again for the first time in a few years, I pretty much feel the same way, which, in this case, is mostly positive.

The best part about this film is the atmosphere, hands down. It's a dim mansion, and while there are jump scares, I feel more of the frightening portions are subtle. There's a dream sequence I could have done without, but for the most part, I think the scares come honestly.

What helps is the cast of about two people. Sure, Brahms' parents, Jim Norton and Diana Hardcastle are both fantastic, but neither has much screen-time. Ben Robson doesn't show up until the end, and he's not exactly oozing with interesting character traits (though to be fair, it's more due to the script than Robson himself).

So who we have to entertain us for most of the film, providing you don't count the creepy Brahms doll, are Lauren Cohan and Rupert Evans. Cohan does a pretty fair job throughout, and after discovering the doll's more active than it should be, really comes across as crazy at times. Evans, who has previously appeared in such horror films as Asylum Blackout (or The Incident) from 2011 and The Canal from 2014, has a very enjoyable performance here, and really, he comes across as quite charming. Luckily, Cohan and Evans worked quite well together, which is great, as they were about the only important characters in the film.

Gore certainly wasn't much a factor here, and really, special effects weren't needed, as the film keeps things pretty simple. Like I said, it's the atmosphere that's most commendable, but certainly the performances listed above help out. What also can't be ignored is the moderately creepy mansion, which looked great and certainly helped add to the already well-done atmosphere.

The biggest issue with The Boy is that it sort of meanders a bit toward the middle of the film, which was fine for character building, but it's not the most exciting material. That said, I did like how Cohan's character's personal issues tied in well enough to the film's plot, and certainly gave her reason to want to stay after discovering the doll she was hired to watch over was alive.

The Boy didn't really garner much attention when it came out (the director, William Brent Bell, hasn't done that much before this, though he did director 2013's Wer, one of the more interesting modern werewolf films), and I can sort of see why. Personally, I think it's an enjoyable film with some solid acting, good suspense and atmosphere, and delightful misdirection, leading to a rather fun conclusion. While not a masterpiece, upon seeing this film again, and outside of a theater experience, I can say that it's a solid film and I'd recommend it. 8/10.

A Beautiful Mind .............. B

Still not blown away by this movie, and have seen Ron Howard do better. Crowe's the best part, great performance. Ho hum script/story.

Jigsaw wrote: The Boy (2016)

The sequel comes out next year and boy does it sound like a winner.

Havok wrote:

Jigsaw wrote: The Boy (2016)

The sequel comes out next year and boy does it sound like a winner.

I noticed that. There are just some movies that you'd think wouldn't have sequels, and The Boy is one of them. Hell, obviously I liked the first one, but really, making a sequel to that, especially when the first one didn't do particularly well? Strikes me as almost pointless.

Filth to Ashes, Flesh to Dust (2011)

I think that Filth to Ashes, Flesh to Dust reached for goals that they couldn't quite realistically attain, but while the movie is certainly repetitive, I don't think it's all that bad.

The special effects were decent. It's not an overly-gory film, but at the same time, they certainly don't shy away from the good stuff. An okay throat-slitting, a decent decapitation, and a few other highlights exist, and though none are memorable, I think that most of them were competently done. The same could be said for the camerawork, while we're at it - it was certainly shaky and amateurish, but in the end, it got the job done.

Most of the actors and actresses here didn't really stand out. Linda Bella acted stoned out of her mind half the time. Allison Ochmanek did a pretty good job playing a racist bitch, a little too well, almost. As the main character here, Derrick Bishop was pretty commendable, as was Bianca Lemaire in her role, though I sort of wish she had gotten more screen-time. Our serial killer, played by Nicholas J. Leinbach was moderately threatening, but I don't think they fleshed his character out nearly as much as they should have.

For the most part, this film could be summed up as "running from killer, fighting, and running again." Very little in the way of additional story was added. Sure, having one of the characters still getting over the murder of their girlfriend was a bit deeper than the norm, and in fact, some of their scenes had an almost-artistic look to them, but it didn't combat how repetitive the film started to become.

I've got to talk about this, though, and that's the basis of the film: a serial killer targets those he believes to be inferior, such as minorities and drug addicts. There's a well-to-do little rich girl who says racist things casually (such as referring to a black friend as a monkey behind her back - that kind of bullcrap), along with another guy who truly thinks that whites are above blacks and Latinos on the evolutionary ladder. In today's political climate, I think this movie addresses some pretty heavy topics (and this came out before Trump assisted in heightening racial tension), which was both a surprise and somewhat of an issue. I don't know if you can accurately look at sociological reasons for racism whilst in the middle of a subpar slasher, but at the same time, I sort of do appreciate the intent.

Filth to Ashes, Flesh to Dust is a movie that has something to say, and that's somewhat unique for a low-budget slasher film. Certainly, this movie tried to do much more than they reasonably could, but that's probably something to applaud them for. No doubt, there are some decently-done emotional scenes in the film, especially the finale. But after having seen it twice now, I don't really think it's a movie that I would go back to. It's competently-made, and some aspects are done quite well, but it's far from the most enthralling piece of cinema. 6/10.


Hellraiser: Inferno (2000)

Inferno takes a different route than previous Hellraiser films, and originally, the script wasn't even meant as a Hellraiser film, which you could sort of guess by watching the final product. Instead of what we got before, this is much more a psychological-based horror than straight-out gore. It's an interesting idea, but comes out a mixed bag.

The special effects in the film are okay for straight-to-video. I'll say again that the Cenobite designs are pretty awful (Torso, while it's nice to be reminded of Chatterer, just doesn't do it for me), but because the movie isn't as focused on the Cenobites as the main character's battle with his sanity, it doesn't hurt the film as much as it did the third or fourth movies. Gore throughout is moderately decent - the hook-whip scene in particular was pretty solid, and the sound effects nailed it (along with a few other scenes). While there's not that many explicitly gory scenes, plenty of aftermath is seen, and all-in-all, it worked out.

The cast wasn't amazing here. You could certainly get the straight-to-video feeling from them. Craig Sheffer was about 50/50, and his narration didn't particularly help. He certainly got hokey at times, especially toward the end. Nicholas Turturro didn't shine here either, and came across as generally weak. Of course, Doug Bradley did just fine as Pinhead, though didn't have as quotable lines as he's had in the past. I did like briefly seeing Kathryn Joosten (of The West Wing fame), and overall, I enjoyed James Remar's performance, though his character didn't make a bunch of sense.

Which is the biggest issue with the movie, being the story, which just feels both underdeveloped and, at times, nonsensical. The time-frame stated in the film is entirely unrealistic, and though toward the end we're given some answers, I can't help but still feel unsatisfied. It doesn't help that some portions of the movie just look rather amateurish (I'm happy to say, though, that the director, Scott Derrickson, greatly improved, and went on to direct 2012's Sinister, an enjoyable film), and some sequences (the cowboy bar, for instance) just seem both random and not relevant to the plot.

I've seen this film some three or four times prior, and I probably liked it more in the past than what I do now. That said, I do think I'd prefer this one over the third or fourth Hellraisers, despite their generally more, for lack of a better term, 'Hellraiser' feel. Inferno has some interesting ideas, and I think a more clear-cut script would have helped the movie out greatly. Nowhere near the best the series has to offer, but more enjoyable, despite its flaws, than the third and fourth movies, Hellraiser: Inferno would probably disappoint many going into it, but I've found it consistently an okay film. 6.5/10.


L'ossessa (1974)

Having not seen this one in what has to be at least six years, I was taken aback by how out there the beginning was, only to be disappointed by the last two-thirds of the film as it went down a predictable route.

Made following the success of The Exorcist, L'ossessa (known under plenty of alternative titles, including Eerie Midnight Horror Show, Enter the Devil, and The Sexorcist), actually starts off in a moderately unique and creepy fashion. Stand-outs sequences include a rather brutal (and weird) crucifixion of the main character, along with quite a suspenseful scene on some stairwells, that sequence perhaps being one of the more tense 70's scenes I've witnessed in a while. The wooden carving coming to life near the beginning was off-putting also.

There wasn't much gore to speak of (even though the crucifixion was brutal, there wasn't tons of blood present), and special effects overall were pretty poor, but at the same time, I think they were able to work with what they had to craft the type of movie they set out to.

Stella Carnacina did great as the main character, and you really felt for her at times. Her parents, played by Chris Avram (Bay of Blood perhaps being his biggest work in the genre) and Lucretia Love, both did well, despite somewhat bad dubbing for the pair of them. Luigi Pistilli, who has been in not only Bay of Blood, but other Italian classics such as The Case of the Scorpion's Tale, The Iguana with the Tongue of Fire, and Your Vice Is a Locked Room and Only I Have the Key, went all-out as the exorcist priest, and despite not having appeared until near the end of the film, made one of the best impressions. Finally, playing the devil, Ivan Rassimov (Planet of the Vampires, All the Colors of Dark, and Man from Deep River being his best-known films) probably laughed evilly a bit too much for my liking, but still obviously had fun with his performance.

The dubbing, as I touched on earlier, was pretty atrocious (I prefer subtitles when possible anyhow). It wasn't helped by the fact that the audio quality for the most common print of the film can come across as awfully muddy at times. Still, it didn't entirely cancel out some great lines of dialogue about how "there's no such thing as incest," and "masochistic tomfoolery." Much of the dialogue was a hoot, despite the poor dubbing (or maybe because of it), and in a way, that added a bit of charm. Nice also were some of the Etruscan tombs, which were rather threatening.

L'ossessa's biggest problem is that the final two-thirds of the film are pretty predictable and aren't really all that interesting, especially compared to the wild ride we got for the first thirty minutes. Certainly, once the possession is clear, there's not really a whole lot to look forward to (trying to seduce the priest attempting to exorcise her was fun, but not enough to cut it). I liked it more this time around than when I first saw it, and it can occasionally be both amusing and creepy, but I can't see it being one I go out of my way to watch this Italian film in the future. 6/10.

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:Cold Pursuit ........... B

Solid Liam Neeson thriller with dark comedy sprinkled throughout. Starts off a bit clunky, as it they were trying to shoe-horn the "Liam Neeson Against _____" trope that might not have been there in the first place, but once it settles it goes along pretty smooth.

Cold Review - A-

Completed the Neeson Planes Trains and Auto(snowplow)mobiles trilogy of Neeson killing people with a node of transport theme. I agree with D on a touch of vlinkiness. But I think because I recognized it as a remake I sat back and enjoyed it a bit more. It’s not as good as Kraftidioten but it has its own charm. It definitely gets a strong mark for comedy elements. There were definitely jokes from the Norwegian one that made me laugh, and in the UK the Fantasy Football jokes died a death. I burst out into a proper laugh at the “you have 4 Browns players” line. Nobody else did. I think it made some brave casting choices and was very good solid film overall. Would recommend.

Seb, I edited your post to fix the spoiler tag.

Jason wrote:Seb, I edited your post to fix the spoiler tag.

Thank you.

Primal Fear (1996)

Never seen this before, but it was pretty good. Richard Gere (Pretty Woman), Edward Norton (American History X, The Incredible Hulk, Moonrise Kingdom), and Terry O'Quinn (The Stepfather) all made for a solid cast. Great ending, also.

Primal Fear is definitely overlooked a lot. That was Edward Norton's first movie too, what a breakout performance.

Rocky III. It isn't as good as I remembered it, growing up as a kid.

Jmac Attack wrote:Rocky III. It isn't as good as I remembered it, growing up as a kid.

Yeah doesn't rank high for me. Actually, 2nd from the bottom for me, above V. Though still nowhere as bad as V.

Jmac Attack wrote:Rocky III. It isn't as good as I remembered it, growing up as a kid.

But...but Clubber Lang... :cry:

Rocky: Best movie overall
Rocky II: Most inspiring scene (jogging scene)
Rocky III: Best ending moment (Trilogy fight we never got to see)
Rocky IV: Funnest movie of all