A very strong horror flick, I like that it didn't bother to explain where the things came from, just focused solely on this family. John Krasinski has definitely proven to be a tight director. I even dug that for like 85% of the movie, it's practically a silent film. I wanted to give this a "+" but I taketh it away for the handful of cheap jump scares. Not the kind where there's actual danger, the false scare kind. One of the false scares though, I thought to myself that "okay...dammit...but if such and such happens...I'll forgive it" and such and such happens so I was happy
I wonder if it could've been even stronger had it gone into R territory, but I guess the focus on family meant wanting to tone it down some. Oh well.
Oh, and while the creatures can hear you, it's pretty clear that very soft noise goes unnoticed. And if there's something that's louder going on, they can't focus. So you can fart as long as you're near something that's louder like a river. No, they don't specifically show it, but I can fill in the blanks from there
The movie does bring up fun, curious questions. Not plot holes, but stuff to think about. Like, it's so focused on this one area, that while a question is brought up, the answer was easily "well, maybe they did know about it already, but things got so fucked so fast they can't get it communicated everywhere else". It's pretty open ended as far as the world goes.
DancesWithWerewolves wrote:A Quiet Place .......... A
A very strong horror flick, I like that it didn't bother to explain where the things came from, just focused solely on this family. John Krasinski has definitely proven to be a tight director. I even dug that for like 85% of the movie, it's practically a silent film. I wanted to give this a "+" but I taketh it away for the handful of cheap jump scares. Not the kind where there's actual danger, the false scare kind. One of the false scares though, I thought to myself that "okay...dammit...but if such and such happens...I'll forgive it" and such and such happens so I was happy
I wonder if it could've been even stronger had it gone into R territory, but I guess the focus on family meant wanting to tone it down some. Oh well.
Oh, and while the creatures can hear you, it's pretty clear that very soft noise goes unnoticed. And if there's something that's louder going on, they can't focus. So you can fart as long as you're near something that's louder like a river. No, they don't specifically show it, but I can fill in the blanks from there
The movie does bring up fun, curious questions. Not plot holes, but stuff to think about. Like, it's so focused on this one area, that while a question is brought up, the answer was easily "well, maybe they did know about it already, but things got so fucked so fast they can't get it communicated everywhere else". It's pretty open ended as far as the world goes.
Yay! Going to see this today. Was hoping it was good.
Sounds decent. I'll wait to see it on video though. I don't want to listen to theater full people munching their popcorn for two hours. That really bothers me and could ruin the whole experience.
Monster wrote:Sounds decent. I'll wait to see it on video though. I don't want to listen to theater full people munching their popcorn for two hours. That really bothers me and could ruin the whole experience.
Maybe go in a few weeks at an early showing?
Believe it or not, it was the most quiet I've ever heard it. I think because everyone was so into it. My little gal didn't even eat her reese's pieces because she didn't want to make noise. Normally that box is gone in the first few minutes. She poured them down her face on the way down the stairs LOL.
Between the silence and the darkness I friggen loved it!
Monster wrote:Sounds decent. I'll wait to see it on video though. I don't want to listen to theater full people munching their popcorn for two hours. That really bothers me and could ruin the whole experience.
Maybe go in a few weeks at an early showing?
Believe it or not, it was the most quiet I've ever heard it. I think because everyone was so into it. My little gal didn't even eat her reese's pieces because she didn't want to make noise. Normally that box is gone in the first few minutes. She poured them down her face on the way down the stairs LOL.
Between the silence and the darkness I friggen loved it!
Standard crappy stuff. Dull and quite boring. I mean, the premise could've worked, but they should've embraced a campy nature or tonal shift instead of the formulaic teen horror film with all the tropes i've seen done a hundred times before. Group of friends, some mcguffin type curse/possession, friends start dying, look up history online, find person related to how things came to be and then try to get rid of said mcguffin at place where it happened.
There's really nothing positive to say about this one. I guess i'll say that's it's a better conceived movie compared to The Bye Bye Man or Friend Request. Anyway, just watch A Quiet Place instead.
This was like a multi million dollar Syfy channel Asylum film that managed to land The Rock somehow. The story is kind of weak and things happen just to get to the next "Rampage" scene, but that's the bulk of most Syfy channel killer animal movies, so it's pretty common just on a much higher scale. Once all the mutated animals arrive in Chicago it's pretty entertaining and what you would come to expect based off the game. I just think that the sizes didn't really match up. George seemed like they nuked his "character" and the others were overpowered in some aspects. Not that it really mattered in the long run, but still something quiet noticeable. A part of me really would've liked to seen how this could've been if they opted to go down the path of a full blown horror/creature feature and not a Lighthearted Action-Comedy with a few Horror-esque scenarios.
Honestly, this film had more gore compared to Truth Or Dare? which is also PG-13. People were ripped apart and eaten, but I can't see a guy jab a pen into his orbital socket? What the hell MPAA?
Overall, if you like schlocky Syfy channel monster movies, then Rampage is no different and it's better than Pacific Rim: Uprising.
What I expected and not what I expected. I expected it to be a steaming turd that I'd hate (which it was) but I didn't expect to like Max so much.
I was smitten with that big smiling possessive creepo. He was like Packard Walsh only...deadish.
I was hoping that he would get ahold of her and we got to see where that went...
The first anthology horror movie ever made, Unheimliche Geschichten (known as Eerie Tales, or Uncanny Tales) further cements Germany's domination in the horror genre, but also presents us a mixed bag of uninspiring stories.
Out of the five stories within this anthology (The Apparition, The Hand, The Black Cat, The Suicide Club, and The Spectre), the only one that I really didn't like was the final story, The Spectre, which is based off a poem and has a much more light-hearted feel to it. But that's not to say the other four stories are good - in fact, really, only one story is above average, being The Suicide Club, while the other three are either average or below, being held back by either my perceived unoriginality or too stagy a vibe.
The Apparition is, for the most part, decent, there is a rather spooky vibe to it, and I even like the ending reveal, but it was just lacking additional meat to the story. The Hand was decently well done, but again, there's not much to it. Based on Edgar Allan Poe's short story, The Black Cat was enjoyable to a degree, but just fell short of actually captivating me. The Spectre, which is unfortunately the worst story within and the worst to end the flick on, wasn't my thing whatsoever.
The framing story wasn't amazing, but I'm giving that a break - being the first anthology horror movie (preceding the 1945 classic Dead of Night by 26 years), I don't expect an amazing set up. The actors throughout were okay, but some were prone to overacting even within the silent era of film, which is saying something. Perhaps Conrad Veidt did the best, playing roles in all five stories, along with the framing sequence (something also done by both Reinhold Schunzel and Anita Berber).
Unheimliche Geschichten is a piece of history, and for fans particularly of anthology horror movies, it might be worth a look, but to say that it is occasionally stale, and comes across far more average than you could hope, would be understating it. By no means a bad film, when all is said and done, there are plenty of other silent German films I would recommend before this one. 6/10.
Child's Play 2 (1990)
This moderately amazes me to say, but the second Child's Play really is about as good as the first, if not a little better. It's probably negligible when it comes to the rating, in truth, but nonetheless, Child's Play 2 is an extraordinarily well-done sequel.
The main cast is close to excellent throughout. Gerrit Graham (of TerrorVision fame) plays a good jackass foster parent. Jenny Agutter, his character's wife, does well as the more sensible of the two (though to be honest, out of the main cast, Agutter's the least memorable). Of course, Alex Vincent comes back as Andy and does a fantastic job, basically playing a kid who knows he's screwed, no matter what he does.
The winning cast member, however, is Christine Elise. Playing a street tough kid, Kyle, in the same foster home as Andy, Elise shows a lot of heart and never has a boring scene. She was in a few television movies and various episodes prior to Child's Play 2, so this was her feature film debut, and boy, was it strong. A very likable character, Kyle was a gem to see throughout the film.
Of course, Brad Dourif does a fantastic job again, with some fantastically amusing and well-done lines. I can never get enough of Dourif's voice acting, as it really makes Chucky the badass he is. On a related note, while there were a few deaths that didn't do much for me (the first one, for instance), the suffocation death was jolly good fun, and every death past that was entirely serviceable. Chucky went all out, especially near the end (and boy, did he get mutilated as the movie went on), and was a sight to behold.
The special effects were damn good, especially regarding Chucky's bodily mutilations toward the end. Somewhat ironic that most of the gore in this flick comes from the antagonist, but it looked great and worked out well.
I've seen this movie many times before, but it never struck me until now just how well this compares with the first movie. The tight story-writing and fantastic cast really allows this sequel to stand up with the original, and more so, this movie itself can stand up as one of the best 1990's horror flicks (honestly, the competition wasn't high in that decade). Child's Play 2 wastes no time, and from beginning to end, it's a damn fun ride with an amazing finale. 8.5/10.
Der Golem, wie er in der Welt kam (1920)
A true classic of the silent era, Der Golem, wie er in der Welt kam (a prequel to the lost 1915 Der Golem) is a great watch, even if you're new to silent flicks.
The one caveat is that if you do seek this movie out, make sure you find a version with a score. I've seen this twice before, both times with a score, but for this most recent rewatch, I was watching a truly silent version, which I don't like doing and can affect the film. That said, I will do my best to not let that interfere.
The setting, a slum that the Jewish population are forced to dwell in, was captivating, and showed some inklings of the impressionist style that Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari is better known for. Homes made of stone, wearing little more than robes, really showed the desperate situation the Jews found themselves in, and when they're told they're to be expelled by the emperor, it really helps show why one of them would go to the lengths of crafting a Golem.
Which is somewhat ironic, as one of the reasons they're being expelled is due to their practice of dark magic, which, by creating a Golem, sort of proves the emperor's point. But that flawed logic aside, I do get where they're coming from.
Not much of the cast really stood out aside from Albert Steinruck, Paul Wegener, and Lyda Salmonova. Really, the standout is Wegener's performance as the titular Golem, a very Frankenstein-monster esque creation. He didn't express all that much a range of emotion, but he did have, at times, a very threatening presence (not all that far removed from Frankstein's monster from the 1931 classic Frankenstein).
There's many prints of this flick floating about. This time around, I saw the 1 hour and 42 minute version, which, at times, does occasionally feel as though it's dragging. Still, there's shorter versions out there if you want a more digestible taste of this flick. Der Golem, wie er in der Welt kam isn't my favorite silent horror flick, but it is a classic for a reason, and I'd highly recommend a watch at least once in your life. 7.5/10.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986)
It's no secret that the original film, while it has it's merits, has never been a favorite of mine. It is, however, so much better than this piece of trash.
Tobe Hooper took a different approach with this movie, throwing away the bleak and gritty tone of the original for a black-comedy with very little to offer.
There's not many pros, so I'll get them out of the way first. Stretch (played by Caroline Williams) was a pretty good character throughout the movie. Not only was she decently attractive, I thought she did a good job portraying how maddening being a capture to that insane family was. Dennis Hopper's Lefty was a fun character in the beginning, but very quickly became an idiotic mess as soon as soon as Stretch fell down the hole into the Sawyer's lair. Leatherface, as a character alone, was okay.
Everything else was hideous.
Chop Top (played by Bill Moseley in a very early role) had no redeemable qualities. Any time he was in a scene, the scene got worse. I couldn't stand him during any portion of the movie, and when he was with his family, he only got more annoying. The Cook (Jim Siedow) was far better done in the first film (played by Siedow still). Here, he is over-the-top (like almost every character) and utterly irksome.
The original film had a demented house, which was gritty and terrifying. While the final setting here was cool (an abandoned theme park or some such), it was lacking the threatening feel of the house in the first movie. It just felt too goofy and extravagant.
This whole movie was too goofy, in truth. I don't really do comedy mixed with my horror. Very few movies of the sort have really done it for me. You take a good concept and ruin it like this, it just bothers me. If you liked the movie, great. It's a pale shadow of the original, though, and honestly, having rewatched it twice now, I don't think I'll ever desire to see this atrocity again. If I want my fill of a chainsaw massacre, I'll stick with the superior original, third film, or 2003 remake. 4.5/10.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)
One of two adaptations of Stevenson's classic 1886 novella from 1920 (the other being a 40-minute short featuring Sheldon Lewis), Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is another one of those classic silent horror flicks that many have probably heard of. The movie itself is perfectly fine, but before digging deeper, it'd only be fair to say that out of the classic horror/gothic novels (Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Dracula, Frankenstein, among others), Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde has always been one of the least captivating stories for me.
The movie works, by and large, due to a combination of John Barrymore's solid duel performance as both Jekyll and Hyde (*gasp* yes, they're the same person) and keeping things within a proper pace for most of the flick. Aesthetically, it's enjoyable (though lacking much of the art that foreign films at the time, especially those from Germany, tended to add), and the story is fine, despite not being a favorite.
Which is really what holds this movie back from being great, to me. Oh, I don't question it's importance (not only is there a solid transformation scene, but there was a pretty creepy scene with what looked like a ghostly giant spider crawling on Jekyll), but I never, no matter the adaptation (be it this flick, which I've seen multiple times before, the 1931 version, or any post-2000's versions I've ran across) found myself captivated by it.
The most common print of this movie is around 50 minutes (which is coincidentally the version I have on DVD), but I instead opted out to watch the full one hour and 21 minute version. It certainly gave more story, but again, as I'm not a giant fan of the story, it just felt eh.
Solid pacing and Barrymore's acting aside, I don't love this movie. Plenty of other silent horror flicks stand out above this one for me (and some utterly obscure as opposed to this well-known film), and while it's worth at least one view, I'm not sure it's worth much more, in my estimation. This is not a bad movie, but it wasn't my thing, and I found it a bit below average. 6/10.
Child's Play 3 (1991)
If Child's Play 3 has any real drawback, it would be that it lacks some of the spirit of the first two flicks, along with some occasionally shoddy acting. To be honest, though, again, I was moderately surprised by just how solid this movie was upon rewatch.
The main problem, as I alluded to, is that this flick lacks much of the magic of the first two. Why exactly that is, I'm not sure. It did, to a certain extent, feel a bit rushed, and while there was a kid in danger, being at a military academy, it's hard to compare that to Andy being locked in a mental institution with Chucky coming after him. There were some tense scenes throughout, but nothing that much felt like the first two films.
As for the kid, Jeremy Sylvers, he did pretty well with his role, though not nearly as well as Vincent did. And the character Botnick, played by Andrew Robinson (who, interestingly enough, played Larry in Hellraiser) was a bit over-the-top.
But plenty of other actors did quite well: Justin Whalin (Andy), Perrey Reeves (De Silva), Travis Fine (Shelton), Dean Jacobson (Whitehurst), Dakin Matthews (Cochrane), and Peter Haskell (Sullivan, the only familiar face from the last film) all did varying well with their roles, though somewhat problematically, none of them really stood out one way or the other.
The kills throughout the film were pretty damn good. Some slit throats, a good garbage truck crushing, slow motion bullet wound (during a fantastic war game sequence), Child's Play 3 didn't skimp out on gore. Even Chucky's demise (at least, insofar as this movie goes) was beautifully bloody. And that heart attack scene? I'm still laughing at that. Related, I still get a kick out of the "Hide the Soul" game (originally brought up in the second film); I remember, even as a kid, how funny that was.
The whole ending sequence (from the war games to the carnival) was fantastically fun. The haunted house finale, while not as good as the final fight in the second film, was an absolute blast, which included heavy duty fans, swinging scythes, and a mountain of skulls. While this doesn't possess the charm of the first two movies, Child's Play 3 is still a very solid sequel and film, and any fan of the first two flicks would do well to check this one out. 8/10.
Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990)
Finally, a Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie I can enjoy.
Keeping things simple, this flick is basically a more polished version of the first movie, and drops the atrocious black comedy tone of the second, much to it's favor. While I've only seen it twice now, I find it a very enjoyable movie to just sit back, relax, and watch.
The Sawyer family here is far more functional than they were in the first two movies (how the family got anything done in the second is utterly beyond me), and more so, the members themselves are more enjoyable. Leatherface (R.A. Mihailoff) is pretty much as he always is, but the additions of Tex (Viggo Mortensen) and Tinker (Joe Unger) were strong indeed, Tex especially for his strong charisma. Alfredo (Tom Everitt) was the weak point, being this film's answer to the first film's Hitchhiker and second film's Chop Top, but he was still infinitely less annoying than the earlier renditions. In short, the family felt more functional, and that really helped with enjoyment.
More important, though, is Ken Foree (of 1978's Dawn of the Dead fame), who plays a survivalist named Benny. Benny is a badass - he knows how to fight, shoot, and come out ahead. I was pleased with his presentation and his story throughout the film, and Michelle (Kate Hodge) should feel quite lucky he popped up when he did.
The gore in this film is slightly muted, I feel, but there's still some decently good stuff (such as a painful scene where Michelle tries to free her nailed-down hands from a chair), and though it's not made a priority, the implication of more gore is always there (an off screen head-smashing, some chainsaw action, etc.).
While this film went back to the basics, it wasn't able to catch the same level of grittiness the original movie had (though, to be sure, I think it'd be close to impossible for any 90's movie to match the grittiness of a 70's flick), which has it's pros and cons. That said, there's little to complain about here. You have a good setting (that bog of bodies was beast), occasional action, some amusing lines (“You never heard of pizza?”), solid suspense and acting, and lastly, Ken Foree. A very solid movie, and perhaps one of the best this series has been able to make. 8.5/10.
Schloß Vogelöd (1921)
Directed by F.W. Murnau (who later directed both Nosferatu and Faust), Schloß Vogelöd does a pretty good job at creating an interesting early mystery/horror hybrid, held back by it's length and related, some of the scenes.
This compelling story, revolving around possible lies about a three-year old murder, has a lot of mystery and secrets, with a twist or two, throughout. It has a moderately dark atmosphere, and is overall a fun movie.
It does run on a bit longer than it really needs to, though. At an hour and 22 minutes, I can't help but think that things dragged a bit through some of the acts (this movie is divided into five acts), especially the second and fourth. There's a dream sequence that, while not overly lengthy, feels a bit out of place, and I could have done without that.
Arnold Korff (who played the host) and Paul Hartmann (Oetsch, who was accused of killing his brother) both do really well in their roles, and while no one in this movie does a bad job (aside from maybe Julius Falkenstein, and that may have just been because his character was more comedic relief than anything else), Korff and Hartmann stand out the most.
To many, if not most, Haunted Castle would be a minor German movie, a silent mystery, of little interest, Personally, I think the story is very solid, and while many may not, I've seen this movie twice and still consider it a horror flick, albeit one very borderline. Regardless, though, if you like silent movies, or are willing to give one a shot, aside from the fact that this runs a bit long (though I would recommend the 1 hour and 22 minute version over the 55 minute, more common, cut), I think you'd enjoy this one. 7.5/10.
Cube Zero (2004)
In inside look, if you would, of the operators of the Cube, Cube Zero is a very interesting and very flawed movie.
The concept of this film, looking at the Cube from the outside perspective as opposed to an inside one is cool, but it sort of negates the purpose of the first two movies. More so, it brings even more questions to the table that are never answered.
Philosophically, this movie does have something to offer up to think about, most prominently at what point does just “taking orders” go to far. Still, there are some other questions, such as if an individual does a bad thing, but forgets about it, should they still be punished, and similar thoughts. There's certainly more to this movie than what's on the surface, in short.
Insofar as acting goes, it was a bit of a mixed bag. I liked the main character Wynn (Zachary Bennett) well enough, but part of me wonders why he even went for a job working in the Cube to begin with (which is, as I mentioned earlier, one of the man additional questions this flick brings to the forefront). Wynn's partner, Dodd (David Huband) was decent, though was a bit shaky at times. And as for almost everyone else? They were passable, but not really memorable.
Aside from the character Jax, played by Michael Riley. He was moderately over-the-top, a bit goofy, and really felt out of place in a movie like this, in my opinion. Many other commentators have said that he's the high point of the film, but I just don't see it. He just seemed so ludicrous as to take away from the interesting aspects of both this governmental agency and the society as a whole. Cube Zero asks some good questions, but throwing in a character like Jax just doesn't do much to lend credibility to the more serious aspects of the film.
The gore, though there's not a whole lot, is good. At the very least, it's better by far than the second film, and the body melting scene near the beginning can rival any death in the Cube series, as far as I can recall. True, some CGI looked really hooky, but for the most part, as far as deaths go, this movie did okay.
The ending was a mixed bag, much like the movie as a whole. I sort of liked what they were going for, but at the same time, it doesn't really add anything to the mix. Cube Zero took a bunch of interesting ideas and deep questions, and blended together, unfortunately it comes out 50/50. The movie certainly isn't bad, and I do find it better, generally speaking, than Hypercube, but it doesn't match anywhere close with the original 1997 flick. 7/10.
Avengers Infinity War (A+) - The best compliment I can give is it made me feel like I was reading a comic book crossover if that makes any sense at all. So much going on but they made it flow nicely and the special effects are just incredible. This movie lives up to its hype A+ all the way.
Tiggnutz wrote:Avengers Infinity War (A+) - The best compliment I can give is it made me feel like I was reading a comic book crossover if that makes any sense at all. So much going on but they made it flow nicely and the special effects are just incredible. This movie lives up to its hype A+ all the way.
All except the female child of Thanos. She looked under-rendered. Don't see why it couldn't have been someone in makeup, just enlarged.
I will admit, this was a deeply disappointing rewatch.
Much of the gore and death sequences in this movie are solid. Electrocution scene, well-done. Nails to the head, pretty good (though I could've done without the Pinhead reference). Waterbed death, good idea, not that great an execution. Overall, though, the movie is best when it focuses on these scenes.
Because nothing else is really worthy of much praise.
Jennifer Tilly's voice annoys me, I won't lie. But what annoys me so much more is all of the in-jokes this movie had, from the aforementioned Pinhead reference, to a joke about the amount of sequels this series has, and even throwing in artifacts from other famous slashers (A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, etc.). It felt off. Not stupid exactly, but just too much.
An even bigger problem is the story, though, which I just didn't care for all that much. Because of it's lighter tone, it's missing almost all of the suspense that the first three movies possessed, and because of the nature of the plot, it felt extraordinarily ridiculous at times, pretty much all stemming from Tiffany's character.
Acting was a mixed bag, with some good (Katherine Heigl and Lawrence Dane), some eh (Nick Stabile and Gordon Michael Woolvett), and some atrocious (Michael Louis Johnson is the biggest problem here). John Ritter's character was a piece of trash, but it was nice to see a friendly face. Brad Dourif did just as good in this performance as he has before, but the script really didn't help him out. And as much as I don't want to bash on Tilly, I didn't care for her character whatsoever, even before her soul went into the doll.
This is a steep decline from the first three movies. The third certainly wasn't perfect, but it's tone was still pretty menacing at times. This flick just felt glossy, a bit ridiculous, somewhat vapid, and aside from the gore, not really worth that much. And the ending was just terrible, I thought. Perhaps the most disappointing rewatch in a while, Bride of Chucky didn't really do it at all for me this time around. 5.5/10.
Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)
As much as I enjoy this sequel, there's no denying it lacks a bit of cohesiveness. Maybe a lot.
Immediately following the first movie, the first thirty minutes or so are decently fine (though I've never been a big Julia fan). But after a certain point, the movie takes a moderately odd turn and once Kirsty (Ashley Laurence) and Tiffany (Imogen Boorman) enter the labyrinth. It feels a lot more disjointed, and some of the things that occur, I just don't get (for instance, why does Channard immediately become the most powerful Cenobite there?).
Which isn't to say that Hellbound isn't an enjoyable movie - it is. The special effects are fantastic, as are the multiple set pieces (the labyrinth, overall, looks damn cool). Some great ideas (though not fully developed) and badass lines ("We have an eternity to know your flesh," not to mention, "Your suffering will be legendary, even in Hell"). It's a fun, occasionally mindless, 80's horror flick, so what's not to love?
Elements feel, as I mentioned, underdeveloped. The whole idea that Cenobites were once humans themselves doesn't really seem to mean much, and Channard's power level seems off the charts, which seems a bad design for a newly-created Cenobite. What exactly Leviathan is, from my understanding, is never made clear, nor is what happens near the end (all you had to do was mess around with the puzzle more, and you destroy hell?). And then at the end, the poll popping up from the bed showing the tormented faces of Pinhead, Channard, Julia, etc, means what, exactly?
Visually-speaking, this movie is fantastic. Story-wise, it's okay near the beginning (though not using Kirsty's boyfriend from the first film certainly seems a noticeable weakness). Kenneth Cranham can be a little campy as his portrayal of Channard, and William Hope's Kyle doesn't really seem to have a point, but overall, most of the actors and actresses did fine. It's just the lack of coherent plot that pulls it down a bit.
Common consensus, at least from my view, puts this movie around being just as good as the first one, and by-and-large, I don't think that's wrong. The first movie had a more streamlined plot, but I did like the almost epic feel this one had, or at least was aiming for. Despite my concerns, it's still a solid movie. Just not as solid as the first. 7.5/10.
Häxan (1922)
Haxan is a deeply interesting movie. Part documentary, part dramatized sequences of things from torturing the confession of witchcraft out of women and covens of old women crafting potions, Haxan isn't a movie that you're soon to forget.
Throughout the film, we're given some information and historical context for the belief in the devil and, more specifically, witchcraft and the trials of those accused of such magic. These portions, while to some may seem dry, are pretty interesting, especially from a modern-day perspective. At times, sure, you might wish they focused more on the dramatized sequences as opposed to a lecture, but I thought it was balanced decently well, a section on middle age torture devices standing out.
There's some wild stuff in this movie, too. Perhaps not surprisingly gruesome given the subject matter, there's all manner of torture and depictions of Hell through the film, and while the demons and Devil have a certain whimsical feel to them, there are still some horrific stuff being done.
Many of the special effects are pretty cool, especially a sequence showing witches flying over a small village. Some of the costumes are a bit ridiculous, but at the same time, it's a Swedish movie from 1922, so I'm not inclined to judge that too harshly.
There are a few of the dramatized scenes that run a bit long, I think, without much interesting content, and the movie does run an hour and 45 minutes (at least the print I saw this time around), so at times it can feel like a bit much. Still, the visuals and effects the movie boasts certainly makes it worth a look.
Directed by Benjamin Christensen (who also directed the 1929 Seven Footprints to Satan, a movie I deeply enjoyed), Haxan is an interesting experience that, if you're a fan of silent films, is very much worth looking into. While it's arguable that it loses some of the power with rewatches, having seen the movie twice, perhaps three times now, it's still a solid viewing. 8/10.
Mikey (1992)
This is a moderately interesting little movie, if not pretty forgettable.
Staring Brian Bonsall (who was on Family Ties for three years), Mikey's a story of a psychotic kid, though without the flair of The Bad Seed or the religious nature of The Omen. Just a kid who gets off on killing people.
It's a simple affair, and Bonsall does his role pretty well. Generally speaking, most of the main cast does also. Mikey's adoptive mother, played by Mimi Craven (who had a small appearance in the original A Nightmare on Elm Street), is memorable in her role. Whit Hertford (Jacob from the fifth A Nightmare on Elm Street and also having a minor scene in Jurassic Park) was pretty decent as a neighbor of Mikey's (though really, he never goes anywhere).
Lyman Ward (who, funnily enough, had a small role in Freddy's Revenge as Ron's father) was pretty fun as a school psychologist, though I wish he had gotten more scenes. Quite attractive in her role, Josie Bissett played Hertford's sister pretty well, though again, like Ward, I wish they did a little more with her in the movie.
The unsurprising standout, though, is Ashley Laurence, who is most well-known for her role of Kirsty from the first two Hellraisers (well, and Hellseeker, but let's not talk about that). Mikey comes across as a lower-budget flick, so how they got Laurence, I don't know, but she shines in every scene, and her interactions with Ward were always enjoyable.
The thing that stands out most about Mikey, Laurence aside, is the low-budget feel the movie has. At times, it reminds me of The Stepfather, in that it occasionally feels much like a television movie. While there's not really a ton of gore (the most common form of execution is electrocution), there's a few solid scenes of individuals beaten with hammers and bats, or shot with arrows. For the most part, though, they don't really stand out one way or the other.
One small last thing, the setting of this film, being Arizona, was sort of interesting. While most of the time you couldn't tell one way or the other, a few of the shots that showed the moderate sparse locality just felt interesting. For one reason or another, though it made zero difference insofar as the plot's concerned, it stood out to me.
Mikey's occasionally slow throughout the film, but with as many interesting actors and actresses as there are, I was never quite bored. The final twenty minutes were pretty fun (as was the entirely expected last minute), but I wouldn't quite say the movie was entirely worth watching. Having seen it twice, I personally find it a decent flick, but it's one of those movies where it's not quite good, but has some charm to it. I would probably put Mikey somewhere marginally above average, but if you go in looking for The Omen, or even The Good Son, you probably won't be happy. 7.5/10.
The Stripper Ripper (2017 or 2018)
Depending on your expectations, The Stripper Ripper might come across a hoot, or one of the worst things you've ever seen. Truth be told, I'm leaning toward the latter.
This comedy-horror spoof-type movie, at this point in time, doesn't appear to have an IMDb page, but information can be found out about it from various online articles.
Filmed entirely in Danville, Illinois, this movie, for the most part, acts as a documentary about a clown terrorizing Ripper County, delving into the victims of the so-called Stripper Ripper, copycat crimes, local reaction to the events, along with interviews from FBI profilers and a Sam Loomis-inspired character named, you guessed it, Dr. Pleasance (played by Shawn Hosseini).
It's a very silly, slapstick movie, which is exactly what author and first-time director Jake Aurelian was going for. The thing is, I just don't think it works well at all. Perhaps as a short, this could have been okay, and maybe mildly amusing, but at an hour and 22 minutes, it just drags on and on.
Sure, we have a plot of sorts: a clown is assaulting people by throwing pies in their faces, and Dr. Pleasance tries to get the local authorities to take the guy seriously, all the while the Stripper Ripper continues his reign of terror. But some of the sequences just run on far past the point of amusing. Indulge me, please, as I list a few examples.
Berating an impersonator, the Stripper Ripper complains for something like five minutes (occasionally impersonating Macho Man Randy Savage, for some reason) before finally punching out a guy who is mimicking the Ripper's style. There's an "interview" with a comedian who got arrested for threatening an audience member that he'll pie her face (in the local climate, this came across as tasteless, apparently). It's fine in theory, but again, it's at least a five minute scene.
At seven minutes, there's a sequence where the Ripper gets pulled over by a police officer for not using his headlights, and the officer asks a barrage of questions. And at eight minutes, there's a FBI profiler who take the time to explain why the Ripper is the man he is. Eight fucking minutes.
Out of those four scenes, 25 minutes have passed. And nary a chuckle was to be found.
Certainly, there were some occasionally funny moments, such as the "Run, Lola, Run," line, and Shawn Hosseini's acting is just so unbelievably amusing. But for a movie that is first and foremost a parody, the laughs are too few and far between.
One more positive thing I'll say for it - the actress Chloe Miller (playing a character named, get this, Laurie Lee Curtis) was moderately decent in her role. With the few scenes she had, she definitely seemed a bit of a highlight to me.
Many portions of this film mimic well-known scenes from Halloween, which is all well and fine, and perhaps if the movie focused more on parodying that classic, I might have enjoyed it more. But slapstick has never been my thing, and this movie just went overboard on everything (don't even get me started on the narrator). These individuals may have had a great time making this, but I just had a horrible time watching it. 1/10.
Schatten - Eine nächtliche Halluzination (1923)
Known most commonly as Warning Shadows, this German classic, originally titled Schatten - Eine nächtliche Halluzination, is a somewhat difficult movie to talk about. On one hand, I deeply appreciate and like the idea of what director Arthur Robison was going for, but on the other hand, past a certain point, I can't help but think that the movies drags.
It's not a lengthy film, at only an hour and 23 minutes. But most silent films have intertitles (in order to get dialogue across to the audience), and Robison decided to opt out of using those. Which means without paying attention to the characters and their relationships with each other, given there is zero dialogue given throughout the film, you'll most likely feel lost.
Which is, in theory, a neat idea, and really lends to the film's expressionist and often moody feeling. But after forty minutes, it's a bit much.
The plot, in which a shadow-player's (think a magician of sorts who focuses on manipulating light and shadows) arrival at a dinner party exasperate the already struggling relationship between a baron and his flirtatious wife, is decently fun, although I do think there's a few too many characters afoot. The route the film takes is an interesting one, and while I do think it drags, I'd say the story works out pretty well.
This is true, in part, due to many factors. Most of the actors and actresses do well at expressing themselves without the use of intertitles, with Alexander Granach (also in the classic Nosferatu), Fritz Kortner, and Ruth Weyher standing out the most.
The color scheme for the version I saw was mostly a purple tint, which I thought went a long way in helping create the moody atmosphere of the flick. The score, too, added to the effect. While the score I heard wasn't at all the original (an electronic portion showcasing that much), it went from dark and brooding to festive in all the right moments. Lastly, the visuals of the movie were pretty cool, which, given it's an expressionist movie, you probably wouldn't expect anything less.
Given all of these positive elements, though, I just can't get beyond the fact that, after half the run-time, I found myself losing focus. In truth, I feel sort of ashamed of it, as this is one of those classic movies you really want to like and spread the word on, but I was struggling to care past a certain point. Because of that, despite the plenty of positive aspects, I'm giving it a bit below average.
That said, this is one of those films I recommend anyone check out, because I think that it's the type of movie that most people would get a kick out of.
One last note: Arthur Robison, the director, made 21 movies, most of them lost with time. The only other movie of note is a 1935 version of Der Student von Prag, the 1913 version being the first intact full-length horror film, which was previously reviewed.
Warning Shadows is worth a watch, but like I said, don't be surprised if you find it a little sluggish. 6/10.
Seed of Chucky (2004)
Perhaps it was just my mood, but I found this film wholly unjustifiable. To be honest, though, my mood aside, I cannot imagine a situation in which I could ever find this movie acceptable.
Bride of Chucky damaged the series by creating a more light-hearted experience, but there was still plenty of elements to moderately enjoy. Seed of Chucky has virtually nothing.
Two of the deaths in the film were okay (a disembowelment and a flamethrower kill). A few of the lines made me chuckle (such as the jab at Tilly's voice). Hannah Spearritt was cute (though her character was extraordinarily idiotic).
But as far as positives go, that's it.
The biggest problem for me is that I just didn't like the story at all. It's such a stupid concept. Toward the end, it felt rushed, and the epilogue was just terrible, but the bigger issue is there wasn't a single thing about the plot that I thought was good or worth seeing. Not a single thing.
The addition of Glen/Glenda was misguided (just as shooting oneself in the face is misguided). I don't know if I can even expand on that. It was just a stupid idea, and it's a damn shame that the series fell to this level.
It may be worth mentioning that unlike the first four films in this series, I've never seen this one before. For exactly the reason that I thought it sounded idiotic. I did try, at the beginning, to go in with an open mind. But when the first sequence is revealed as a dream, and Glen/Glenda wakes up and had a British accent, I was done.
A God-awful experience, perhaps one of the worst sequels to an otherwise decently solid series that I could possibly imagine. Leprechaun: Back 2 tha Hood was better and more entertaining than this shit. The rating is for the two solid kills, the few humorous lines the movie possessed, and Spearritt. 2/10.
Das Wachsfigurenkabinett (1924)
A far more well-known silent anthology than Unheimliche Geschichten (1919), this Paul Leni film (commonly known as Waxworks) has an entire different set of problems, but at the same time, still comes out a slightly better film.
With two stories comprising most of the hour and 23 minute film (each story an average of 38 minutes), the biggest issue with Das Wachsfigurenkabinett is that it's tone isn't that consistent. The first story is a bit of a light-hearted adventure, with jaunty sequences and music. The second was a much slower, almost somber, historical piece about Ivan the Terrible. And the last sequence was a mere six minutes or so, which is where most of this movie's horror elements come from.
So an adventure/history/horror mix is certainly an interesting idea, and the framing story (a writer comes up with stories on some waxworks figures) is certainly decent, but how is the movie as a whole?
The first story, starring Emil Jannings (previously seen in the 1918 Die Augen der Mumie Ma) as a Caliph, was lot of fun, with some great looking set pieces and an enjoyable story. The second, with Conrad Veidt (from 1919's Unheimliche Geschichten and 1920's classic Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari) was certainly more in the vein of horror, but the story didn't do much for me until the pay-off at the end. And the third sequence, with Jack the Ripper/Spring-heel Jack was just too short to really warrant strong opinions one way or the other.
For any anthology movie, I feel that there should be a base of three to four stories, and not counting the framing story, Waxwork had two, all things considered. And while one of them was pretty fun, and many sequences looked cool (along with a fight on top of a temple), this movie didn't have what I really look for in anthology films.
Paul Leni, who later directed such titles as 1927's The Cat and the Canary, 1928's The Man Who Laughs, and 1929's The Last Warning (perhaps one of my favorite silent horror films), did an okay job, but again, the tone didn't really work for me. That said, this is still considered a classic for a reason, and providing that you're able to locate the right print, if you're a fan of silent flicks, this is still worth a watch (if for nothing else, the expressionist set pieces), but all-in-all, it falls a bit below average for me. 6.5/10.
Wishmaster (1997)
Very much a B-movie, Wishmaster has a lot to offer fans of horror.
The story is a fun one, as we don't get too many Djinn-focused horror flicks. What made it even better, though, was the solid cast. Tammy Lauren did pretty damn well as the main star, despite not really being in all that much of note (the only place I know her from is the 1988 television remake I Saw What You Did, co-starring Shawnee Smith).
Most everyone else was a pleasure too. We had some Kane Hodder, Tony Todd (fantastic as Johnny Valentine), Robert Englund in multiple scenes, some narration by Angus Scrimm, and a fun character played by Jenny O'Hara, who, I kid you not, I only know from a random episode of House (the series starring Hugh Laurie). This movie just had a fun bunch of actors and actresses, and even the individuals who I didn't care for as much (such as Andrew Divoff, who was a bit too hammy at times) did okay.
Also, the special effects need to be brought up. A few times, they didn't work out well, especially when they went the hideous early CGI route, but overall, the special effects through the film were something to behold (at both the sequence at the beginning and the party at the end, it's endless eye candy, such as the great skeleton scene and the half-alligator man). So many of the death scenes were well-done (great jaw-ripping scene), and the special effects just looked great.
Wishmaster is no doubt a B-movie, but I think that works out in it's favor. I really liked Lauren's acting, and her character's final wish was pretty clever. While I cannot speak on the necessities of the sequels (I've seen only the second Wishmaster, and was deeply displeased), I can say that this one is very much a movie worth checking out. Having seen it twice, now, perhaps three times, I think you'll have a fun time. 8/10.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
This won't be a very long review, because quite honestly, I can't think of much to say.
Throughout the whole of the film, I just felt it very bland. It's not bad, per se, but nothing really did anything for me. The gore was top-notch, with some solid dismemberments and impaling on meat hooks and the like, but with the glossy style the movie sometimes took, it sort of weakened the impact.
One thing, gore aside, that this movie did really well were the sets. The Hewitt house looked great, with a really creepy exterior and fantastically-done basement, with a whole mess of random horrific stuff crammed down there. The meat packing plant was appropriately creepy also, so kudos there.
As for the actors/actresses involved, none of them were either that great or that bad. They just felt sort of there, going through the motions. I didn't care for R. Lee Ermey's character, but he did okay. As Leatherface, Andrew Bryniarski did decent, and looked rather menacing. As for Jessica Biel and company, really, nothing good nor bad stands out. Biel was certainly attractive in some scenes, which is what they were going for, but other than that, eh.
The movie starts off a bit sluggish, and doesn't really pick up until about forty minutes in, and when it does, it's a smooth ride forward, but I just couldn't shake the idea of how bland I felt the movie was. It has it's positive factors, but from 2003 alone, I can think of other horror flicks I'd rather watch. 6/10.
Curse of Chucky (2013)
For the first time since 1991, we have a good Chucky film, and luckily for us, barring a few minor problems, this is significantly better than Child's Play 3.
The story was appropriately dark and had a rather somber tone, something we've not seen in this series since at least the third movie. Taking place entirely over the course of one night, it's an atmospheric and confined movie, even more so because out main character, Nica (played by Brad Dourif's daughter Fiona) is wheelchair-bound. It's a nice change of pace from Bride and Seed, and even Chucky's antics seem very much muted.
Pretty much everyone in the film did a good job, with my highest compliments going to Fiona Dourif, who played her character amazingly. Danielle Bisutti did the whole bitchy sister act really well, and playing a bit of an airhead with a secret, Maitland McConnell stood out also. Everyone else was fine, but these three deserve the highest praise.
Filling in Chucky's background a bit was nice, and I thought it worked out decently well, but there are portions which seemed to disregard previous movies (such as Tiffany's account in Bride of Chucky vs. what we saw here). That's not a big deal, especially considering that this movie is better than Bride by a long shot, but I still couldn't help but notice it.
This is a tense, dark movie, which is certainly a great addition to the series and a great viewing to any horror fan. While gore wasn't the strongest point of the film, there were still solid instances that stood out. The endings, with a few surprise guests, were also nice, but the post-credit scene seems to disregard the sequence right before it, at least as far as I could tell.
Some small continuity issues aside, Curse of Chucky is the third-best entry to the series, with the first two edging it out. I liked it when I first saw it, and am glad to report that, to me, at least, it still stands strong. 8.5/10.
Maciste all'inferno (1925)
Provided you're in the right mood, this early Italian flick may be a hell of a lot of fun.
A small note, first: Maciste is one of the earliest reoccuring characters in the history of cinema, and is very well-known throughout Italy. A Hercules-type figure, Maciste is a man of much physical and moral strength. Played by actor Bartolomeo Pagano, Maciste appeared in over 25 silent films from 1914 to 1926 (Maciste all'inferno being one of the last ones).
The plot of this movie is about as simple as it sounds: being of strong moral fiber, King Pluto (or the Devil) takes it upon himself to tempt, and damn, Maciste, in order to destroy his morality. And once Maciste gets taken down to Hell, which happens about twenty minutes in, we're in for a fun time.
It may sound a serious melodrama, of sorts, which certainly aren't uncommon insofar as silent cinema is concerned, but Maciste all'inferno is a lot of fun. It's an hour and five minutes of fantastic special effects (that hold up to this day), fist-fighting brawling action (seeing Maciste brawl with the legions of Hell is damn fun), and amazing fantasy, albeit certainly dated. It didn't take itself seriously, and what we have is a light-hearted (though certainly, there's still some real drama at points), fun flick.
There were some really great scenes in this movie, from multiple decapitations (and after one of these, a demon re-attaches his head, which was fun), to all-out brawls between two factions of Hell, to a scene with Maciste flying on a dragon over the depths of Hell. Some things looked a little hooky, but was it fun? Hell yeah.
The main problem I had was a subplot that seemed to come out of nowhere. Wanting to usurp King Pluto's place, another demon named Barbariccia led a revolt in order to satisfy his "revenge." Perhaps it just flew by me, but I have no idea what exactly he wanted revenge for. It was a cool bunch of sequences, but still, I felt I was missing context, which may well have to do with the version I watched.
About the copy of the film I watched: there's a 95-minute version of this movie out there, which can be found online, but I opted for the shorter 65-minute version, for two reasons. Most importantly, the alternative version was in it's native Italian with French captions. I speak neither Italian nor French, and would look very idiotic trying to. Secondly, it uses the score of the French progressive/death metal band Gojira. While I have nothing against Gojira's music, it's not the type of stuff I want to listen to while watching a silent movie.
Still, even the shorter version of Maciste all'inferno was a lot of fun (and probably more digestible if you're not into silent films), and everyone involved seemed to have a good time. Perhaps Italian's earliest-surviving horror film (though no doubt action and fantasy are also strongly-entwined), Maciste all'inferno was a deeply enjoyable watch the first time around, and it was no different this time. 8.5/10.
Cult of Chucky (2017)
Having just finished this, it's a somewhat hard one to rate.
It certainly feels much more ambitious than any of the previous films, and follows Curse quite nicely. But as for the story itself, I think it got a bit away from itself.
The setting of a mental institution is quite fun, and especially as the film begins having a dreamier atmosphere a bit through the movie, the bright white surroundings work well. Actually, I really liked the dreamy feel this movie had, and parts even reminded me of (I know, it's crazy) A Cure for Wellness. Hell, even the cinematography was of very high production.
Curse of Chucky was a step toward trying new techniques, but this one, with slow motion, and occasionally dreamy scenes, and split screens, thrown in with a somewhat befuddling story, really makes this one stand out. For the most part, that's a positive thing. Even though there were a few atrocious CGI scenes (one of the death scenes, for instance), most of what was tried here works still.
Gore was pretty solid throughout, with multiple stabbings, stompings, and, of course, disembowelments. All in good fun. Like I said, the only death that wasn't that great was due to CGI, unfortunately.
Despite a plethora of these positive factors, the story is a bit of a mess toward the end. It's not as though it was without some solid tension, and it was definitely better than the abortion that was Seed of Chucky, but really, the story seemed to go all over the place, and with the route they took, I'm sort of getting the feeling that future films won't really be as solid as Curse was able to be. I can't say much more without spoilers, but it was worth mentioning, as it's about the sole reason this isn't being rated as well as Curse.
There are plenty of good things about Cult of Chucky, but it's no doubt that Curse was a more cohesive, enjoyable, and better movie. The direction that this takes the series seems iffy, but time will tell. If you're a fan of the series, this is certainly worth seeing, but as it's entirely different than all of the other movies, I can't guarantee you'll love it. 6.5/10.
Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992)
A hard movie to speak about, the biggest problem with this flick is that even though it tries to follow the first two Hellraiser movies, Hell on Earth feels entirely different in tone.
The story is fine. Nothing special, nothing terrible. The subplot with Elliot Spencer and Joey wasn't really all that intriguing. The movie just felt off, and despite connections to the previous films (including a brief scene with Kirsty), it didn't real feel all that related.
Most of the acting wasn't that great. Our main character, played by Terry Farrell, was okay. At times, she certainly didn't do that well, but she was consistently better than Kevin Bernhardt's J.P., a pale intimation of the original movie's Frank. I really did like Paula Marshall as Terri, and throughout the film, she had sort of a Shawnee Smith feel to her, which was definitely appreciated. In fact, I think some of the best scenes of the movie are those with Farrell and Marshall, who did decently well together.
Doug Bradley, of course, did well as Pinhead, but although he occasionally had some interesting insights to shine a light upon, he spoke significantly more in this movie as opposed to the previous ones, which sort of dampens his effects. He had some solid lines (the whole mocking Jesus scene was quality, as was the "limited imagination" line), but smaller doses are what the doctor ordered when concerning his dialogue.
The makeup in the movie was serviceable, but the special effects, many of which were done in early CGI, just looked damn awful. And speaking of awful, every single one of those new Cenobite designs were a kick in the face to the horrific simplicity of the original's Butterball and Chatterer. The CD Cenobite was bad, yes, but every single design (from the fire-breathing Cenobite to Pistonhead to Camerahead) was an ocular assault. They just looked shitty.
The movie was also far too corny, with some really bad lines in there. The acting often didn't help with this, truth be told. I'm not sure if all of it was intentional, but even so, it just didn't do much for me.
If you're a fan of the first two Hellraiser movies, as I am, this one will come as a bit of a shock. Certainly it's the black sheep of the first four movies (even if it is probably a bit better than the fourth). This has only been the second time I've seen it, but I can see why I forgot much of it. Hell on Earth has an odd vibe, and while it's not really a terrible movie, the first two are very much superior.
As Camerahead said, that's a wrap. 6/10.
Midnight Faces (1926)
At under 55 minutes, Midnight Faces doesn't appear to have a lot going for it. But if you're a fan of the old dark house mystery type movies (old dark houses, reading of wills, secret passages, multiple suspects, etc), then I think you'd have a blast with this one.
The plot isn't any better or any worse than any other dark house mystery, but the setting (a mansion in the Florida swamps) is decently fun. Mildly related, while the copy I saw had multiple issues (which I'll expand on in a bit), I did like the greenish tint most of this movie had. Really helped the audience feel the more swampy atmosphere.
Despite being short, Midnight Faces has no lack of characters, with eleven individuals popping up now and again. Luckily, most of these people, despite the blurriness of the copy, are easily distinguishable. Francis X. Bushman Jr. does a good job as the main character, and despite the ever-present racial stereotypes of the times, his body man, a character named Trohelius Washington Snapp (played Martin Turner) was occasionally amusing at times also.
The print I viewed, and I believe to be most common, has a multitude of problems, including color tinting fading from a lighter to a darker shade (at times, almost appearing black-and-white), cropped poorly, generally bad picture quality (even for a silent movie), and a repetitive score (it seemed to loop only three pieces of classic music). On the upside, one of the pieces was Johann Pachelbel's Canon in D Major, which was pleasantly calming.
In short, the commonly available print may not be up to high standards, but if you got a kick out of movies like The Cat and the Canary, The Bat Whispers, One Body Too Many, The Monster Walks, or any number of old dark house mysteries, if you're into silent movies, I'd give this one a shot. 7.5/10.
Candyman (1992)
While not a particularly disjointed movie, this early 1990's classic does at times a disorienting, if not somewhat dreamy, feel to it.
And this works to Candyman's credit, as the movie certainly feels a bit deeper than the preceding decade of horror. Atmospheric, yet definitely gory, Candyman's the type of film that I think has a decent amount of appeal.
Based off a short story by Clive Barker, the plot is decently interesting (and feels a more well-rounded look into myths than Urban Legend did six years later), and takes some interesting turns (such as a one month time-lapse toward the end). Really, I think this helped the audience feel as disoriented as the main character was, while also allowing sympathy.
Speaking of which, Virginia Madsen does a fantastic job as Helen. Throughout the film, she was a joy to watch. Xander Berkeley (who has a couple hundred roles on IMDb, and I know best from his appearance on The X-Files) had a good screen presence also, and I rather liked his calm demeanor (along with his emotional scene at the end). And of course, Tony Todd does a great job as the Candyman, and his voice was just creepily well-done.
The movie is certainly not without it's downsides. Not enough explanation of exactly what Candyman's angle is really given. We're left to make assumptions, which is fine, especially for a more fantasy blend of horror, but it's still a bit annoying. And while I sort of liked the enclosed feeling the movie had (it kept it's core characters and few others), a wider scope of sorts might have been nice.
Still, the movie was a fun fantasy-horror mix (on a side note, director Bernard Rose also directed Paperhouse, from 1988, a very dark fantasy/light horror mix, which I loved), and the gore it possesses should be enough to engage fans of more straight-forward slashers. The ending sequences (with the bonfire, the funeral, and the aftermath) worked extraordinarily well together, as rarely I've seen horror that ended with real feeling.
Questions still come to mind about what exactly Candyman's goal was, but overall, this Clive Barker adaptation is very much worth seeing. The calming Candyman theme is enjoyable, the movie's atmospheric feel is great, so this really stands out as a highlight of 90's horror no matter how many time you've seen it. 8.5/10.
Hellbound is my favorite horror film score. Christopher Young really knocks it out of the part with it, improving upon his already great score to the first film.
The movie hasn't aged as good as the first though, I used to prefer it, but over time, I find the first just better.
Depending on your expectations, The Stripper Ripper might come across a hoot, or one of the worst things you've ever seen. Truth be told, I'm leaning toward the latter.
This comedy-horror spoof-type movie, at this point in time, doesn't appear to have an IMDb page, but information can be found out about it from various online articles.
Filmed entirely in Danville, Illinois, this movie, for the most part, acts as a documentary about a clown terrorizing Ripper County, delving into the victims of the so-called Stripper Ripper, copycat crimes, local reaction to the events, along with interviews from FBI profilers and a Sam Loomis-inspired character named, you guessed it, Dr. Pleasance (played by Shawn Hosseini).
It's a very silly, slapstick movie, which is exactly what author and first-time director Jake Aurelian was going for. The thing is, I just don't think it works well at all. Perhaps as a short, this could have been okay, and maybe mildly amusing, but at an hour and 22 minutes, it just drags on and on.
Sure, we have a plot of sorts: a clown is assaulting people by throwing pies in their faces, and Dr. Pleasance tries to get the local authorities to take the guy seriously, all the while the Stripper Ripper continues his reign of terror. But some of the sequences just run on far past the point of amusing. Indulge me, please, as I list a few examples.
Berating an impersonator, the Stripper Ripper complains for something like five minutes (occasionally impersonating Macho Man Randy Savage, for some reason) before finally punching out a guy who is mimicking the Ripper's style. There's an "interview" with a comedian who got arrested for threatening an audience member that he'll pie her face (in the local climate, this came across as tasteless, apparently). It's fine in theory, but again, it's at least a five minute scene.
At seven minutes, there's a sequence where the Ripper gets pulled over by a police officer for not using his headlights, and the officer asks a barrage of questions. And at eight minutes, there's a FBI profiler who take the time to explain why the Ripper is the man he is. Eight fucking minutes.
Out of those four scenes, 25 minutes have passed. And nary a chuckle was to be found.
Certainly, there were some occasionally funny moments, such as the "Run, Lola, Run," line, and Shawn Hosseini's acting is just so unbelievably amusing. But for a movie that is first and foremost a parody, the laughs are too few and far between.
One more positive thing I'll say for it - the actress Chloe Miller (playing a character named, get this, Laurie Lee Curtis) was moderately decent in her role. With the few scenes she had, she definitely seemed a bit of a highlight to me.
Many portions of this film mimic well-known scenes from Halloween, which is all well and fine, and perhaps if the movie focused more on parodying that classic, I might have enjoyed it more. But slapstick has never been my thing, and this movie just went overboard on everything (don't even get me started on the narrator). These individuals may have had a great time making this, but I just had a horrible time watching it. 1/10.
I was actually waiting for this to show up eventually. I agree with everything you mention, it would've made a fine short film, but a feature like it is feels like a joke that goes well beyond the punchline and just begins to insult you that the comedian is still going and going, beating you over the head with the same joke. Also, the director played the clown and narrator.
Normally that box is gone in the first few minutes. She poured them down her face on the way down the stairs LOL. 
